Notices
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 362

Thread: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin.

  1. #101  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Thanks for your patience.

    I can't believe these interpretations do any good. But I appreciate your good attitude.

    I'm out of here.

    Thanks.
    It's up to you.
     

  2. #102 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Don't let the mentioning of the Quran divert you and some other scientists and researchers from seeing the idea;
    and with some patience:
    I see scientists are fond with investigations, researches and studies in order to reach to the truth about nature and creation.

    Anyhow; about the theories of the formation of the earth, the planets, moons and mountains: most of such theories are not convincing. They are only some assumptions and postulations; because no man had ever seen such incidents in the far past.
    So, according to you, we should toss out scientific theories, analysis and so on in favor of the Quran's explanations?
     

  3. #103 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    So, according to you, we should toss out scientific theories, analysis and so on in favor of the Quran's explanations?

    No wise man may say to discard or disregard scientific theories unless they are proved false and wrong.

    But many of such theories are like fiction speaking about billions of years with assertions, which cannot be accepted absolutely.

    E.g. how they speak about the earth formation:
    Boom said in this forum in the thread (Why the earth rotate around itself):

    "The spinning is sort of like Centrifugal force on a celestial scale
    when the earth was formed
    it started out as a huge rotating cloud of gas and tiny particles of basic elements, as it clumped together and got smaller, but with the same mass, the rotation increased, think like when an Ice skater in a spin pulls in their arms they spin faster --- [[ How could you know that for certain, and speak with assertion; this is almost not correct, and even not fit to the imagination.]]


    The angle is universally decided as a testament to our solar sytems violent past,
    originally it spin upright and at some point a large, moonish sized object, smashed into the earth, knocking it off balance, the simple answer as to lack of a whopping crater hole is it happened way back, 3.5 billion years ago at least, so the planet was still molten-soft like toffee, so the hole flattened out over the next billion years." --- [[ How could you know that for certain, and speak with assertion; you do not know what happened in the next street only yesterday; then what about billions of years.]]
    --------------------------------------------------------

    While in the Quran and its interpretation: a better explanation is given:

    The earth and the rest of the planets were one sun; then that sun cooled by time and transformed into an earth with a thin crust.

    That crust prevented the gases emerging from that sun, and when the pressure of the imprisoned gases increased, it burst and broke up into 9 pieces (: our present earth and the rest of the planets).

    The earth was not so regular at the start; it started to rotate around itself because of its internal heat; so its protruding edge detached from it (: the Moon.)

    Then the flaming and hot earth acquired a cold crust which started to increase in thickness by time; so the earth was formed after being a flaming sun.

    The past planets that were rotating around that ancient sun were broken up into many pieces that fell down on the newly formed planets (our earth and the rest of the present planets.)

    So which is more logical and acceptable? And you are science related men, and have to speak the truth, not according to lectures but to logical and reasonable thinking:

    >>That uncertain cloud of dust spinning billions of years, then an object struck the earth (without any proof or evidence; only assumption and guessing)

    >>or such origin of the earth (and the planets) from a previous sun; and bearing in mind that our sun is also undergoing the same fate of the past one?

    As God – be glorified – said in the Quran 21: 30
    أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنَاهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَاء كُلَّ شَيْءٍ حَيٍّ أَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Do not those who disbelieve consider that the heavens and the earth [: the planets and the earth] were compacted [as one mass], then We shattered them, and made – of water – every living thing? So would they believe?)

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Did you know that wind and hurricanes are God farting?
     

  5. #105 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    No wise man may say to discard or disregard scientific theories unless they are proved false and wrong.
    Your assertions about mountains have been demonstrated false, first by the sheer logic of large objects meeting one another a great velocities, and second by the scientific analysis of the earths crust.

    But many of such theories are like fiction speaking about billions of years with assertions, which cannot be accepted absolutely.
    The Quran is only 1400 years old, hence it also falls under that category and cannot be accepted absolutely, or in this case even remotely.

    While in the Quran and its interpretation: a better explanation is given:

    The earth and the rest of the planets were one sun; then that sun cooled by time and transformed into an earth with a thin crust.
    The rest of your post reads like a bad science fiction novel, with no science and plenty of magic.
     

  6. #106 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Your assertions about mountains have been demonstrated false,
    first by the sheer logic of large objects meeting one another a great velocities,
    and second by the scientific analysis of the earths crust.

    I gave in my previous replies many conditions for such objects may not be at great velocities, and the directions of their movement, and the angle of landing, then the crust was not that hard at the beginning of its formation: after elapsing of the first 2000 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The Quran is only 1400 years old, hence it also falls under that category and cannot be accepted absolutely, or in this case even remotely.
    The Quran is 1400 years old; yes, but it is the lasting God's word that is superior to generations: superior to this century and the following centuries; moreover, it includes a large number of ayat or revelations that are unknown to people in the past, and will be evident in the future, and this is its miraculous time extension: because the interpretation of these Quranic ayat is new and outstanding.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    The rest of your post reads like a bad science fiction novel, with no science and plenty of magic.
    There is no magic, neither is their any novel; and I am neither a magician nor a novelist; refer to our last replies and see the details: how the plant grew on the mountains, like the Olive tree which grew originally from the Mount Hor in the wilderness of Sinai, and the Quran states that the iron in its free form was sent down in the meteorites.

    This is in the Quran 57: 25
    وَأَنزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ ... الخ
    The explanation: (And We sent down the iron [included in the meteorites falling down from the space], in which are both keen violence and [many] advantages to people, …etc.)

    This is because the meteorites come from the outer space where there is no oxygen to combine with the iron; therefore, the iron included in the meteorites is in its free form; while the iron present on earth cannot be found free because of its extreme affinity to combine with oxygen.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.

    This is in the Quran 77: 27
    وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ شَامِخَاتٍ وَأَسْقَيْنَاكُم مَّاء فُرَاتًا
    The explanation:
    (And [have We not] made in the [earth] high [mountains] "that landed and settled", and given you to drink 'sweet and pure' water?)

    So such very high mountains: they almost came in this way.
    I think e.g. the Himalaya with its highest mountains on earth might have come in this way of landing and settling on the Earth.

    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike; but most certainly they had fallen from the space in the form of the meteoritic portions of the planets that had been destroyed in the past.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites

    The high mountains, hum?


    So,



    ============

    we have Andes whose higher peak is 6 959 meters tall:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._des_Andes.jpg



    But they were formed thanks to the force of subduction of pacific Ocean beneath south American plate and the compressive force of American continent.


    Nothing to do with meteorites for Andes.



    =======





    And we have indeed Himalaya (Mt Everest is its higher mountain):


    * We can measure the speed of raising of this chain. That proves that the chain hasn't stop to be formed contrary to what your theory of meteorites implies.


    * We find a 'suture' (rest of oceanic crust, which used to be an ocean) between India and Eurasia, like on other contiental-collision mountains.
    it makes sense with the collision of India and Eurasia continents.

    if this chain were really formed by meteorite falling, it wouldn't keep on raising until now, but would be even tiniest than today [due to intense erosion
    => the higher a mountain is, the more important erosion (on it) is].


    Besides, we cannot see any crater in Himalaya region. That makes your theory even more baseless and thus more ludicrous.




    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike;
    ...and if one tells a geologist what you say here, he will probably laugh at you, I'm afraid.

    The example of Andes and Himalayas clearly shows that tectonics may form very high mountains.




    Therefore, I honestly don't think that Himalaya and Andes fell by chance just between 2 plates having relative movements to each other.
    There are obviously not fallen mountains on earth. So, lest I disappoint you, I'd only say that your theory is merely speculation.
     

  8. #108 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    I gave in my previous replies many conditions for such objects may not be at great velocities, and the directions of their movement, and the angle of landing, then the crust was not that hard at the beginning of its formation: after elapsing of the first 2000 years.
    Yes, that was also complete nonsense.

    The Quran is 1400 years old; yes, but it is the lasting God's word that is superior to generations: superior to this century and the following centuries; moreover, it includes a large number of ayat or revelations that are unknown to people in the past, and will be evident in the future, and this is its miraculous time extension: because the interpretation of these Quranic ayat is new and outstanding.
    That is brainwashing and indoctrination on your part to Bronze Age superstition and myth. Your personal interpretations of the Quran are as relevant as any others and are only bound by the extent of imaginations.

    There is no magic, neither is their any novel; and I am neither a magician nor a novelist; refer to our last replies and see the details: how the plant grew on the mountains, like the Olive tree which grew originally from the Mount Hor in the wilderness of Sinai, and the Quran states that the iron in its free form was sent down in the meteorites.
    Yes, that's called magic. Do you not know the difference between magic and science?


    This is because the meteorites come from the outer space where there is no oxygen to combine with the iron; therefore, the iron included in the meteorites is in its free form; while the iron present on earth cannot be found free because of its extreme affinity to combine with oxygen.
    So what? When iron combines with oxygen, a chemical change occurs. What relevance does that have?
     

  9. #109 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Yes, that was also complete nonsense.
    No, the Quran is the truth, its interpretation is truth, and the atheism is falsehood.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    That is brainwashing and indoctrination on your part to Bronze Age superstition and myth. Your personal interpretations of the Quran are as relevant as any others and are only bound by the extent of imaginations.

    No Bronze Age superstition neither it is myth; the Quran is the authentic word of God which superior to your lectures and the next centuries knowledge even.


    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Yes, that's called magic. Do you not know the difference between magic and science?
    I know very well the difference between magic and science, as do I know the difference between the belief in God alone without associate or patron, on one hand, and on the other hand the atheism and non-religious attitude.

    This is because the meteorites come from the outer space where there is no oxygen to combine with the iron; therefore, the iron included in the meteorites is in its free form; while the iron present on earth cannot be found free because of its extreme affinity to combine with oxygen.
    So what? When iron combines with oxygen, a chemical change occurs. What relevance does that have? [/quote]

    God - be glorified - said in the Quran 57: 25
    وَأَنزَلْنَا الْحَدِيدَ فِيهِ بَأْسٌ شَدِيدٌ وَمَنَافِعُ لِلنَّاسِ ... الخ
    The explanation: (And We sent down the iron [included in the meteorites falling down from the space], in which are both keen violence and [many] advantages to people, …etc.)

    So He explained in this aya that the iron came down from the sky; so how does iron come down from the sky? It comes included in the meteorites because some of the meteorites consists of iron and nickel; and when it comes in the meteorite it comes in its pure and free form (not combined with oxygen like the iron present on Earth; so that the ancients used the iron included in some meteorites to make some tools like swords and knives ...etc; because people in the past did not know how to extract the free iron out of its ore. So this is why God said that He sent down the iron from the sky; and this is one of the ayat that pertain to science and not to magic as do you claim: because it was revealed 1400 years ago, and yet it includes much of the valuable knowledge in various disciplines of knowledge.
     

  10. #110 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    No, the Quran is the truth, its interpretation is truth, and the atheism is falsehood.
    Who said anything about atheism? Clearly, your agenda is of a religious nature, pushing Islamic propaganda, which has nothing to do with science.

    No Bronze Age superstition neither it is myth; the Quran is the authentic word of God which superior to your lectures and the next centuries knowledge even.
    Your brainwashed, indoctrinated propaganda has been noted.

    I know very well the difference between magic and science, as do I know the difference between the belief in God alone without associate or patron, on one hand, and on the other hand the atheism and non-religious attitude.
    Your posts would indicate you know nothing of science and believe only in ancient magical myths and superstitions.

    So He explained in this aya that the iron came down from the sky; so how does iron come down from the sky? So this is why God said that He sent down the iron from the sky
    Religious nonsense. Magic and superstition.
     

  11. #111 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    No, the Quran is the truth, its interpretation is truth, and the atheism is falsehood.
    Who said anything about atheism? Clearly, your agenda is of a religious nature, pushing Islamic propaganda, which has nothing to do with science.

    You will keep up speaking like an orator or newspaper reporter but never argue like a science related man.
     

  12. #112 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    You will keep up speaking like an orator or newspaper reporter but never argue like a science related man.
    The Quran is not a book on science.
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    If your theory is correct, shouldn't the 'mountains' be charred black from the immense heat and friction caused by entering the Earth's atmosphere? The residual heat would have left Earth extremely baking hot, considering the immense size of the mountains; too hot for organisms to survive. We would have been cooked and fried alive, and it would be a very brave or very stupid organism to venture into the heat. We would not have been here to discuss it.

    Also, why did the pieces fall so diversely? Remember that the Earth is curved, and any object falling to the Earth should either be burned up by friction or just barely survive. If an object fell to Earth at a single point, say, where the Everest is now, then its pieces should not have landed extremely far away. Yet there are the Andes in America, and several other mountains across the world.

    How do you justify yourself?
     

  14. #114  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Had this idea come from other than the Quran, you would have considered and admired it.
    Anyhow, I shall answer your probabilities:


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If your theory is correct, shouldn't the 'mountains' be charred black from the immense heat and friction caused by entering the Earth's atmosphere?
    This happened in the early stages of the Earth formation;

    The formation of the earth and the planets and their moons took 6000 years:
    1- the crust of the earth formed within the first 2000 years, and that sun thus was transformed into an earth with a cold thin crust at the beginning which started to increase in thickness and coldness.
    2- During the next 4000 years: the crust started to increase in thickness, and the mountains landed during this 4000 years period: may be at its beginning, then the sustenance and provision of the future inhabitants was determined and decreed.
    3- Then God – be glorified – tended to construct the gaseous layers of the atmosphere which took 2000 years to be formed: when its layers separated during this period of time.

    Hence, the crust of the earth might not be that rigid; it might have had some elasticity (not rigidity) to absorb the falling of the portions of the destroyed planets.

    Moreover, these portions were huge in masses, so that they should not burn in the atmosphere which might have been in its early phases.

    In addition, such portions of the destroyed planets landed and were firmly set on the earth; and it is not necessarily that they had come down with much force: or so violently.

    Also, some of such portions of the destroyed planets were huge in volume and mass so that they would not burn or charred black; some included living plant seeds and animal and man corpses.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The residual heat would have left Earth extremely baking hot, considering the immense size of the mountains; too hot for organisms to survive. We would have been cooked and fried alive, and it would be a very brave or very stupid organism to venture into the heat. We would not have been here to discuss it.
    All that is required: are seeds of the plants and the decayed corpses of animal and man, and all this came embedded in these pieces of the destroyed planets that later became the mountains.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Also, why did the pieces fall so diversely?
    The pieces fell so diversely, in order to serve for the purpose of the balance: to let the earth spin and move regularly and smoothly. It does not necessarily mean they fall altogether and at once. (for the same purpose.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Remember that the Earth is curved, and any object falling to the Earth should either be burned up by friction or just barely survive.
    This has been explained above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If an object fell to Earth at a single point, say, where the Everest is now, then its pieces should not have landed extremely far away. Yet there are the Andes in America, and several other mountains across the world.

    When the pieces of the destroyed planets landed on Earth, they were firmly fixed in the ground, like the pegs of the tent. (that are hammered in the ground.) Some of these pieces neighbored each other in the same region, (while others went to other places as required for the steadying of the Earth movement); as God said in the Quran 13: 4
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation:
    (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    The interpretation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites [or the portions of the destroyed planets] because they came to the earth from the space.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    How do you justify yourself?


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  15. #115  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    This thread is a shining example of how the myths and superstitions of the bronze age enslave the intellect and how the Abrahamic cults have kept mankind in a constant state of ignorance and stupidity.
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    don't forget that they aren't the only brand of crazy to contaminate thought.
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    This happened in the early stages of the Earth formation;

    The formation of the earth and the planets and their moons took 6000 years:
    1- the crust of the earth formed within the first 2000 years, and that sun thus was transformed into an earth with a cold thin crust at the beginning which started to increase in thickness and coldness.
    2- During the next 4000 years: the crust started to increase in thickness, and the mountains landed during this 4000 years period: may be at its beginning, then the sustenance and provision of the future inhabitants was determined and decreed.
    3- Then God – be glorified – tended to construct the gaseous layers of the atmosphere which took 2000 years to be formed: when its layers separated during this period of time.

    Hence, the crust of the earth might not be that rigid; it might have had some elasticity (not rigidity) to absorb the falling of the portions of the destroyed planets.

    Moreover, these portions were huge in masses, so that they should not burn in the atmosphere which might have been in its early phases.

    In addition, such portions of the destroyed planets landed and were firmly set on the earth; and it is not necessarily that they had come down with much force: or so violently.

    Also, some of such portions of the destroyed planets were huge in volume and mass so that they would not burn or charred black; some included living plant seeds and animal and man corpses.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    The earth and the rest of the planets were one sun; then that sun cooled by time and transformed into an earth with a thin crust.

    As I said, there were no sun transformed into earth. That's totally ludicrous!


    The pieces fell so diversely, in order to serve for the purpose of the balance: to let the earth spin and move regularly and smoothly. It does not necessarily mean they fall altogether and at once. (for the same purpose.)
    Errr... on the contrary, when huge meteorites fall on the earth, they rather tend to make our planet unbalance. Indeed, Earth's axial tilting was due to those fallen pieces.








    Another point if we let some irregular body fall freely to the ground: then the heaviest part of it, where the centroid is there, will come first to the ground.

    When we see the mountain: almost it has a wider base and a tapering top like a cone; this is generally speaking.

    This may indicate it had fallen on Earth in the ancient times; because the heaviest part will come first: like when you let some irregular body fall freely, the heaviest part will come first to the ground.

    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 88: 17-19
    أَفَلَا يَنظُرُونَ إِلَى الْإِبِلِ كَيْفَ خُلِقَتْ . وَإِلَى السَّمَاء كَيْفَ رُفِعَتْ . وَإِلَى الْجِبَالِ كَيْفَ نُصِبَتْ
    The explanation:
    (Do they not consider how the camel is [wisely] created!?

    How the sky is raised high [above the earth, without pillars, that they see],

    How the mountains are set up [on the earth like pegs] …)

    And this is how the base of the mountain is below, and the tapering top is above, indicating how they were set on the ground.

    While the tectonic factor will not cause such tops of mountains; it will rather make some layers become above and another layer will be low; then how will the typical shape of most mountains be this cone shaped tapering above at the tops?

    But of course the volcano will cause a cone-shaped volcano which can easily be recognized.


    There are indeed cone-shaped volcanoes on earth. But also tapering mountains (just look for that on google pictures): there are MtBlanc, K1, Everest.
    And yet, these peaks belong to mountains chains which were formed through tectonic (continental collision). Their form isn't provoked by tectonic factor, but by erosion.
     

  18. #118  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    don't forget that they aren't the only brand of crazy to contaminate thought.
    What I've found is the vast majority of nutters are usually religious nutters first.
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    This thread is a shining example of how the myths and superstitions of the bronze age enslave the intellect and how the Abrahamic cults have kept mankind in a constant state of ignorance and stupidity.
    Other than your funny cartoon; you are wrong concerning the religion of Prophet Abraham, who was against idolatry and was devoted to God alone.

    This is in the Quran 2: 130
    وَمَن يَرْغَبُ عَن مِّلَّةِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ إِلاَّ مَن سَفِهَ نَفْسَهُ وَلَقَدِ اصْطَفَيْنَاهُ فِي الدُّنْيَا وَإِنَّهُ فِي الآخِرَةِ لَمِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And can anyone – save the foolish – like any religion other than that of Abraham? Him We chose in this World, and – in the Hereafter – he is among the righteous.)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  20. #120  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Other than your funny cartoon; you are wrong concerning the religion of Prophet Abraham, who was against idolatry and was devoted to God alone.
    Your indoctrinated beliefs into the Islamic cult don't change the fact that Muhammad was a murderous despot no different than any other murderous despot alive or dead, bent on conquest and power using a cult mindset to control the masses.
     

  21. #121  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Your indoctrinated beliefs into the Islamic cult don't change the fact that Muhammad was a murderous despot no different than any other murderous despot alive or dead, bent on conquest and power using a cult mindset to control the masses.

    Your words are lies, and you are insisting on lies; on a purpose.

    Your rancor and insisting indicate your fanatic belonging.

    Prophet Mohammed was noble, like other prophets, and his goodness cannot be denied like the sun in the sky.

    You can nock your head on that door or on the wall, until you perish with your falsehood, rancor and lies.
     

  22. #122  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    Your words are lies, and you are insisting on lies; on a purpose.
    No, you see, eanassir, it is YOU who is the one producing lies, which this thread will attest. That fact that you base your lies on a book written on the words of someone who spread an ideology by use of conquest and murder would demonstrate that someone was a murderous despot.

    Prophet Mohammed was noble, like other prophets, and his goodness cannot be denied like the sun in the sky.
    If rape, murder, conquest and abuse of power is your definition of "goodness" then I would agree with you.
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    How the mountains landed on the Earth

    Some guys here cannot imagine the idea of the portions of the destroyed planets had landed on Earth to become the mountains;
    although we have explained that such falling of the meteorites and pieces of the planets occurred at the early phases of the Earth formation when the crust was not so hard, but it was somewhat elastic and absorbed that falling and landing of the mountains which then became firmly fixed on the ground like the pegs of the tent (that are hammered in the ground.)

    We add here that the Earth in its early formation was spinning very quickly much faster than it is now. This quick spinning will cause a great repelling force that will lead to lessening the effect of such landing of the mountains, and will lead also to tilting it on the required tilt of its axis of 23 degrees, and its spinning and movement will be steady and regular.

    Moreover, its circling around the sun was much quicker; because the sun in the past was hotter than it is now, and so the sun will spin quicker around itself, dragging the earth and the other planets to circle around it faster; so the year was much shorter than it is now. And taking into consideration that the pieces of the past destroyed planets, might have been moving with some speed and direction that lead to landing of such mountains and resting heavily and steadily on the ground to become firmly fixed; as God – be exalted – said in the Quran 79: 32
    وَالْجِبَالَ أَرْسَاهَا
    The explanation:
    (And the mountains He did firmly set [on the ground, after being in the space].)

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  24. #124  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    How the mountains landed on the Earth
    You really should stop lying, eanassir. You don't do any justice to your cult by promoting lies.
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    just wanting to point out something

    A mountain sized meteor has been observed on other planets to make crators such as:

    http://www.cosmicastronomy.com/azcrater.jif

    most meteorites, or what's left of them look like this:

    http://www.talkgirly.com/space/wp-co.../meteorite.jpg

    Now a meteor about the size of an office desk and about 10 tons came into the atmosphere just 700km north west of where I live. It's effects weren't a mountain at all- it was a fireball, an explosion, then fragments like the one above.
     

  26. #126  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    just wanting to point out something

    A mountain sized meteor has been observed on other planets to make crators such as:

    http://www.cosmicastronomy.com/azcrater.jif

    most meteorites, or what's left of them look like this:

    http://www.talkgirly.com/space/wp-co.../meteorite.jpg

    Now a meteor about the size of an office desk and about 10 tons came into the atmosphere just 700km north west of where I live. It's effects weren't a mountain at all- it was a fireball, an explosion, then fragments like the one above.

    The Arizona crater almost was due to a comet impact: where the crater only was left, while the comet buried inside the earth deep under the ground; while no meteorite or rock was left other than tiny stones. The bottom of the crater is flat.

    While the fireball which came on Canada recently was doubtful whether it was due to comet or to meteorite: I wrote an article about it here:
    http://forums.canadiancontent.net/sc...ll-canada.html



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  27. #127  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    599
    oh I see so an article you wrote is more evidence than the METEORITE FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE AREA WHERE IT WAS PROJECTED THEY WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE FIREBALL?

    What are you even talking about? Flat bottoms? It went deep into the Earth? Really? A more convincing symptom of that would be a giant gaping hole in the Earth.

    Also why do you seem dramatically less crazy in that link you posted (canadiancontent forum) compared with here?
     

  28. #128  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    While the fireball which came on Canada recently was doubtful whether it was due to come or to meteorite: I wrote an article about it here:
    http://forums.canadiancontent.net/sc...ll-canada.html
    Yes, and I would agree with this response to said article:

    "You are still spreading nonsense I see.
    Very little of what you post has any relevance to reality. And there is a reason why people like Dex and myself keep saying the same things: it is because science deals with reality, unlike your interpretation of the Koran, which seems to favor fantasy. "
     

  29. #129  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Another warranted response from your link, eanassir. Thanks for providing it.

    "I can be perfectly patient with people who are willing to learn or instruct, but I find it very difficult to be patient with people who repeat by rote and ignore facts. eannassir constantly ignores facts, scientific laws, dismisses evidence, and spews the same gibberish from an obviously warped interpretation of the Koran. Then he says that we just accept what we have been told while he is doing the exact same thing he accuses us of doing. He doesn't challenge what he reads."
     

  30. #130  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    While on the subject eanassir, you have YET to identify the specific mountain which you claim are from outer space.

    Provide the info you have been asked for numerous times please.
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The residual heat would have left Earth extremely baking hot, considering the immense size of the mountains; too hot for organisms to survive. We would have been cooked and fried alive, and it would be a very brave or very stupid organism to venture into the heat. We would not have been here to discuss it.
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    All that is required: are seeds of the plants and the decayed corpses of animal and man, and all this came embedded in these pieces of the destroyed planets that later became the mountains.
    You misunderstand me. The heat alone would decimate organisms at the microscopic level. Many bacteria would die instantly, along with other microorganisms. Given this, there is no way that organisms might have survived tremendous heat; earth would have been left a shattered ruin.

    Quote Originally Posted by "eanassir
    The pieces fell so diversely, in order to serve for the purpose of the balance: to let the earth spin and move regularly and smoothly. It does not necessarily mean they fall altogether and at once. (for the same purpose.)
    This implies divine purpose; that the mountains were deliberately placed in their way in order for the earth to spin evenly. I do not believe in divine purpose (though I do believe in God), but even so, I'd ask you to reply with a scientific answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    If an object fell to Earth at a single point, say, where the Everest is now, then its pieces should not have landed extremely far away. Yet there are the Andes in America, and several other mountains across the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    When the pieces of the destroyed planets landed on Earth, they were firmly fixed in the ground, like the pegs of the tent. (that are hammered in the ground.) Some of these pieces neighbored each other in the same region, (while others went to other places as required for the steadying of the Earth movement); as God said in the Quran 13: 4
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation:
    (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    The interpretation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites [or the portions of the destroyed planets] because they came to the earth from the space.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    I'll draw attention to one thing you said: "while others went to other places as required for the steadying of the Earth movement". Once again this implies divine purpose, and not a scientific answer. Why should they need to stabilise the orbit at all? Also, I would advise you not to refer to the Quran as your basis; the wisdom of the ancients need not always be correct.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by mormoopid
    oh I see so an article you wrote is more evidence than the METEORITE FRAGMENTS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE AREA WHERE IT WAS PROJECTED THEY WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE FIREBALL?

    What are you even talking about? Flat bottoms? It went deep into the Earth? Really? A more convincing symptom of that would be a giant gaping hole in the Earth.

    The fragments go more with a meteorite rather than a comet, although the flaming comet may split as was it manifested in a recent comet.

    The meteorite is an inert rock, while the comet is a flaming mass hurled out of the sun at extreme speed, and the tail of the comet consists of gases attracted to the body of the comet by the gravity of the latter. There is no ice or dirty ice in the comet.

    When the comet falls down (usually on the frozen and very cold regions), it will bury under the ground leaving a crater on the surface of that region; the bottom usually is flat because of the heat of the comet which melt the rocks and the ground like the effect of the welding flame.

    This is in the Quran 77: 8 about the falling of comets in the future before Doomsday:
    فَإذا النُّجُومُ طُمِسَتْ
    The explanation:
    (So when the [tailed-]stars [:the comets] are immersed [in the earth.] )

    The meaning: When comets are immersed inside the earth and will disappear inside it; because they will fall upon the earth when Doomsday gets very near; because the heat of the earth will finish, so it will be exposed to the falling of comets down upon it.

    God - be exalted – said also in the Quran 81: 15-16
    فَلا أُقْسِمُ بِالخُنّسِ . الجَوارِ الكُنّسِ
    The explanation:
    (15- But [should] I swear by [the comets] that are [now] slinking back!
    16- The moving along, the swept [in the future] into their dens!)

    This means the comets; because, nowadays, they are invisible to our sight, and they are going to be swept to the earth just before Doomsday; i.e. they will resort to the earth, and hide inside it; and they are ‘the moving along’, which are moving today, roaming in the space, without any refuge or resort.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_3.htm#Comets

    [This also is like what happened to Venus and Mercury, which is full of a large number of craters.]

    While on the Canadian Content Forum I gave them much information about the Quran and its interpretation and its marvels, and yet I perceived no response from them, and the evidence has been established before God against the atheists and disbelievers, and I should inform other people, by God's will.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  33. #133  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    While on the subject eanassir, you have YET to identify the specific mountain which you claim are from outer space.

    Provide the info you have been asked for numerous times please.

    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.

    This is in the Quran 77: 27
    وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ شَامِخَاتٍ وَأَسْقَيْنَاكُم مَّاء فُرَاتًا
    The explanation:
    (And [have We not] made in the [earth] high [mountains] "that landed and settled", and given you to drink 'sweet and pure' water?)

    So such very high mountains: they almost came in this way.
    I think e.g. the Himalaya with its highest mountains on earth might have come in this way of landing and settling on the Earth.
    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike; but most certainly they had fallen from the space in the form of the portions of the planets that had been destroyed in the past.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    The meteorite is an inert rock,while the comet is a flaming mass hurled out of the sun at extreme speed, and the tail of the comet consists of gases attracted to the body of the comet by the gravity of the latter. There is no ice or dirty ice in the comet.
    Firstly, a comet is not hurled out of the sun at all. It is an object that possesses an extremely elliptical orbit around the sun, yet cannot be classified as a a planet. The tail of the comet is actually made up of ice, and is not a collection of gases accreted by the comet. The ice formed is due to the extreme cold of deep space.

    Secondly, a meteorite is not an inert rock, but is a meteor fallen to the ground.

    While on the Canadian Content Forum I gave them much information about the Quran and its interpretation and its marvels, and yet I perceived no response from them, and the evidence has been established before God against the atheists and disbelievers, and I should inform other people, by God's will.
    Yet here is the rub: why does whatever the Quran has to say be considered absolute truth? Why can't the Bible, or the Vedas, or any other religious books, claim the same? The evidence has not been established; it is still mere hearsay, based on quotations from the Quran.

    This means the comets; because, nowadays, they are invisible to our sight, and they are going to be swept to the earth just before Doomsday; i.e. they will resort to the earth, and hide inside it; and they are ‘the moving along’, which are moving today, roaming in the space, without any refuge or resort.


    Comets are alive!? Why didn't anyone tell me?

    Seriously, by referring to the Quran, you're not making your stand any better at all. You're undermining yourself with these quotations. If you want to make an impact, I'd suggest you base your evidence on actual data. For example, which mountains come from outer space?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The heat alone would decimate organisms at the microscopic level. Many bacteria would die instantly, along with other microorganisms. Given this, there is no way that organisms might have survived tremendous heat; earth would have been left a shattered ruin.
    If the piece falling is a very large one, some microorganisms and branches and seeds of trees buried deep inside that piece, will escape such death and will survive.
    Moreover, the essential thing is the decayed organic substance of the corpses of animals and man; out of which God - be glorified - created the species and the subspecies: male and female, and let them reproduce. See this here in this Science forum, in my thread:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15644


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    This implies divine purpose; that the mountains were deliberately placed in their way in order for the earth to spin evenly. I do not believe in divine purpose (though I do believe in God), but even so, I'd ask you to reply with a scientific answer.

    When we observe the planets: each circles in its specific orbit so that the year of each planet will issue; and each planet spins around itself so that the day and night of the planet will take place; and each planet has its tilt of its axis to be proportional to its distance away from the sun; and each planet has its seasons, and its moons, and its atmosphere -- so is all this without purpose, and without wisdom?


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I'll draw attention to one thing you said: "while others went to other places as required for the steadying of the Earth movement". Once again this implies divine purpose, and not a scientific answer. Why should they need to stabilise the orbit at all? Also, I would advise you not to refer to the Quran as your basis; the wisdom of the ancients need not always be correct.

    The movement of the planets need to be stabilized; because if the movement is not regular, we cannot work and do our deeds, unless the earth is moving so smoothly that we cannot perceive its movement, in spite of that it moves very quickly.

    Moreover, the Quran is not the wisdom of the ancients, but the word of the All-Wise and All-Knowing God. As in the Quran 41: 42
    لَا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ
    The explanation:
    (Surely, those [will regret] who disbelieve in the admonition [of the Quran] when it has come to them, and surely it is a precious scripture [to the believers, although the disbelievers deny it.]

    No falsehood can approach it, neither before his hands [at the time of its revelation] nor afterwards [: a long time after that]; [it is] revealed from a Wise [and] Praiseworthy [God.] )


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    If the piece falling is a very large one, some microorganisms and branches and seeds of trees buried deep inside that piece, will escape such death and will survive. Moreover, the essential thing is the decayed organic substance of the corpses of animals and man; out of which God - be glorified - created the species and the subspecies: male and female, and let them reproduce.
    I see. How did these micororganisms survive the extreme cold of space then?

    When we observe the planets: each circles in his specific orbit so that the year of each planet will issue; and each planet spins around itself so that the day and night of the planet will take place; and each planet has its tilt of its axis to be proportional to its distance away from the sun; and each planet has its seasons, and its moons, and its atmosphere -- so is all this without purpose, and without wisdom?
    I believe in God, eanassir. I just do not believe in religion. I do not believe God interferes with our universe at all; he created the universe, but everything after the Big bang happened on its own.

    You are misinformed. The only planet known to have seasons is planet Earth itself. The other planet's atmospheres are poisonous to human beings, and the atmosphere depends on the strength of the gravitational force. Not all planets spin. Not all planets have moons. That such a thing can happen is possible, even without divine assistance.

    The movement of the planets need to be stabilized; because if the movement is not regular, we cannot work and do our deeds, unless the earth is moving so smoothly that we cannot perceive its movement, in spite of that it moves very quickly
    Once again, you refer to divine purpose. I want a proper answer, scientific in nature, eanassir. Is that too much to ask?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  37. #137  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Firstly, a comet is not hurled out of the sun at all. It is an object that possesses an extremely elliptical orbit around the sun, yet cannot be classified as a a planet. The tail of the comet is actually made up of ice, and is not a collection of gases accreted by the comet. The ice formed is due to the extreme cold of deep space.

    This is what you have been told in lectures and you believed it straightforward.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Secondly, a meteorite is not an inert rock, but is a meteor fallen to the ground.
    The meteorite by definition is the celestial rock reaching the ground. As in the Quran 2: 74
    ثُمَّ قَسَتْ قُلُوبُكُم مِّن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً وَإِنَّ مِنَ الْحِجَارَةِ لَمَا يَتَفَجَّرُ مِنْهُ الأَنْهَارُ وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَشَّقَّقُ فَيَخْرُجُ مِنْهُ الْمَاء وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ خَشْيَةِ اللّهِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness.
    For indeed there are [some] rocks out of which rivers gush,
    and indeed there are [some] rocks which split asunder so that water flows from them. And there are [some] rocks which fall down for the fear of God. God is not unaware of [all] that you do.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Yet here is the rub: why does whatever the Quran has to say be considered absolute truth? Why can't the Bible, or the Vedas, or any other religious books, claim the same? The evidence has not been established; it is still mere hearsay, based on quotations from the Quran.

    The Quran came to correct the past heavenly books that have been distorted: the Torah revealed to Moses, and the Gospel revealed to Jesus;
    and the Quran confirms the Ten Commandments, particulraly the First and the most important of these Commandments: which declares that God is One without associate or patron.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#First_Commandment
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#...t%20of%20Quran


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com


     

  38. #138  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The movement of the planets need to be stabilized; because if the movement is not regular, we cannot work and do our deeds, unless the earth is moving so smoothly that we cannot perceive its movement, in spite of that it moves very quickly.

    this movement can be stabilized thanks to inertia. The bigger an object spinning in space is, the higher is its 'resistance' against "movement-modification" caused by an external torque. Without any external torque, this object can spin freely without any "unstability".




    The meteorite by definition is the celestial rock reaching the ground. As in the Quran 2: 74
    ثُمَّ قَسَتْ قُلُوبُكُم مِّن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً وَإِنَّ مِنَ الْحِجَارَةِ لَمَا يَتَفَجَّرُ مِنْهُ الأَنْهَارُ وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَشَّقَّقُ فَيَخْرُجُ مِنْهُ الْمَاء وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ خَشْيَةِ اللّهِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Then, even after that, your hearts were hardened and became as rocks, or worse than rocks, for hardness.

    For indeed there are [some] rocks out of which rivers gush,
    and indeed there are [some] rocks which split asunder so that water flows from them. And there are [some] rocks which fall down for the fear of God. God is not unaware of [all] that you do.)

    Pure concordism! Your interpretation is made a posteriori. That's useless. As i said, that kind of interpretation can be used on anything to find scientific miracles.
    Those rocks which fall down can merely be those which fall from the top of mountains to the bottom...





    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.

    This is in the Quran 77: 27
    وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ شَامِخَاتٍ وَأَسْقَيْنَاكُم مَّاء فُرَاتًا
    The explanation:
    (And [have We not] made in the [earth] high [mountains] "that landed and settled", and given you to drink 'sweet and pure' water?)

    So such very high mountains: they almost came in this way.
    I think e.g. the Himalaya with its highest mountains on earth might have come in this way of landing and settling on the Earth.
    And if one sees such huge mountains like the Himalaya, it cannot be it was due to tectonic or what alike; but most certainly they had fallen from the space in the form of the portions of the planets that had been destroyed in the past.
    I've already refuted that high mountains (that we can see) could be from meteorites.




    How the mountains landed on the Earth

    Some guys here cannot imagine the idea of the portions of the destroyed planets had landed on Earth to become the mountains;

    But I can imagine that, during the early epoch of our Earth, celestal objects (making the earth spacious) fell on the inital crust. Whether the crust were elastic or not, if these meteorites 'fixed' to the Earth made a high relief, the latters would be long-eroded.


    You didn't bring so far credible evidences for your theory.
    Therefore, i'm afraid, this thread deserves to be considered as 'pseudoscience'.
     

  39. #139  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    While on the Canadian Content Forum I gave them much information about the Quran and its interpretation and its marvels, and yet I perceived no response from them, and the evidence has been established before God against the atheists and disbelievers, and I should inform other people, by God's will.
    You are a liar. Is it Islam that taught you to lie? Is it Islam that condones your lying? Here are the responses, liar.

    "I can be perfectly patient with people who are willing to learn or instruct, but I find it very difficult to be patient with people who repeat by rote and ignore facts. eannassir constantly ignores facts, scientific laws, dismisses evidence, and spews the same gibberish from an obviously warped interpretation of the Koran. Then he says that we just accept what we have been told while he is doing the exact same thing he accuses us of doing. He doesn't challenge what he reads."

    "You are still spreading nonsense I see.
    Very little of what you post has any relevance to reality. And there is a reason why people like Dex and myself keep saying the same things: it is because science deals with reality, unlike your interpretation of the Koran, which seems to favor fantasy. "

    BTW, I am one of those "atheists and disbelievers" and I spit on your lying god.
     

  40. #140  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    How did these micororganisms survive the extreme cold of space then?
    In the same way, when they are deeply embedded in these portions of the broken up planets, that fell down on Earth as do meteorites fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    I believe in God, eanassir. I just do not believe in religion. I do not believe God interferes with our universe at all; he created the universe, but everything after the Big bang happened on its own.
    Everything in the universe is the work of God Almighty; if the Big Bang is true, then it is also the work of God Himself; the continuation of existence of the universe is because God wants it and He is All-Aware about everything.
    As He said in the Quran 2: 255
    اللّهُ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ الْحَيُّ الْقَيُّومُ لاَ تَأْخُذُهُ سِنَةٌ وَلاَ نَوْمٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ ...الخ
    The explanation:
    (God! No god [to be worshipped] but He [alone],
    the Alive [Who dies not],
    the Disposer [in the affairs of the universe and creatures.]

    Neither slumber [like that overtake souls] nor sleep [like that overtake living people] can overtake Him.

    Whatsoever is in the [gaseous] heavens and whatsoever is in the earth belong to Him…etc.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The only planet known to have seasons is planet Earth itself.
    The other planet's atmospheres are poisonous to human beings, and the atmosphere depends on the strength of the gravitational force.
    Not all planets spin.
    Not all planets have moons.
    That such a thing can happen is possible, even without divine assistance.

    Earth is not the only planet having seasons; e.g. Mars has seasons: winter, summer, spring and autumn.

    The atmospheres of the planets may differ from the earth in one or more points; but in case of Venus which it has stopped its axial rotation, the atmsophere now is full of thick smoke: the perpetual cloud of Venus as do they call it.
    While Mercury which had stopped axial rotation before Venus: Mercury had lost its atmosphere.

    All planets spin with the exception of Venus and Mercury which stopped their spinning.

    Mercury and Venus now have no moons.

    It is God - be glorified - Who keeps up the solar system working in harmony, and all the universe in order; otherwise everything will corrupt and will vanish.

    As in the Quran 35: 41
    إنّ اللهَ يُمسكُ السماوات و الأرضَ أن تَزولا و لَئنْ زالتا إن أمسَكَهُما مِنْ أحدٍ مِنْ بَعدِهِ إنّهُ كانَ حليما غفوراً
    The explanation: (Surely, God holds back the heavens and the earth, that they escape not [the gravitation of the sun]; and if they were to escape [the gravitation of the sun], no one else than Him could hold them. He is Ever-Clement [and] Most Forgiving.)

    See more details about this here.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Gravity


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  41. #141  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    While on the subject eanassir, you have YET to identify the specific mountain which you claim are from outer space.

    Provide the info you have been asked for numerous times please.

    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.
    What A WONDERFULLY VAGUE description.

    Let me be clear about this:

    Give us names of SPECIFIC mountains and/or ranges, NAMES, understand.

    I will not stop asking until you have met this request.
     

  42. #142  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    All planets spin with the exception of Venus and Mercury which stopped their spinning.
    Either you or your god fucked up. Venus and Mercury DO in fact spin.

    It is God - be glorified - Who keeps up the solar system working in harmony, and all the universe in order; otherwise everything will corrupt and will vanish.
    Since your god was clearly wrong about Venus and Mercury spinning, we can ignore him, and you for any future references to the planets.
     

  43. #143  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    this movement can be stabilized thanks to inertia. The bigger an object spinning in space is, the higher is its 'resistance' against "movement-modification" caused by an external torque. Without any external torque, this object can spin freely without any "unstability".
    This is obviously wrong; whether the object is small or large.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Those rocks which fall down can merely be those which fall from the top of mountains to the bottom...

    Is it stated in the aya that the rocks fall down from the mountain? Or is it you who postulate this?

    Then tell us what are such rocks or stones that come down from the sky in this aya 8: 32
    وَإِذْ قَالُواْ اللَّهُمَّ إِن كَانَ هَذَا هُوَ الْحَقَّ مِنْ عِندِكَ فَأَمْطِرْ عَلَيْنَا حِجَارَةً مِّنَ السَّمَاء أَوِ ائْتِنَا بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍ
    The explanation:
    (And when they said: "O God, if this [Quran] be indeed the truth from You, then rain down on us [a shower of] stones out of the sky [like that You had brought down on Lot's people], or bring us a painful chastisement [like that You had brought on the people of Prophet Salih.]")

    Are such stones from the mountains or from the sky?

    And there are many other ayat here: http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites



    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Pure concordism! Your interpretation is made a posteriori. That's useless. As i said, that kind of interpretation can be used on anything to find scientific miracles.

    Some people have denied the interpretation of the Quran, as did they deny the revealing of the Quran in the past, and as had they denied Moses and the other apostles.

    This is in the Quran 10: 39
    بَلْ كَذَّبُواْ بِمَا لَمْ يُحِيطُواْ بِعِلْمِهِ وَلَمَّا يَأْتِهِمْ تَأْوِيلُهُ كَذَلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الظَّالِمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (But [actually] they [: the people of Prophet Mohammed] have cried lies to the [mysterious ayat of the Quran: the 'similitudes'], the knowledge of which they comprehend not,

    and even when the interpretation thereof will come to them [at the time of the Mahdi-Paraclite, they will also cry lies.]

    Even so those [unbelieving nations] that were before them cried lies [to their apostles];

    then see [O Mohammed] what end was of the wrong-doers [: was it not destruction and ruining?])

    To demonstrate this, I gave you the aya 2: 17 and told you who the one that sought fire was? And what was the implication of the parable? And I told you to seek the interpretation with all the commentators of the Quran; but you evaded and could not find the answer; but evenso you did not admit it.

    So now – because you claim this interpretation is not correct – and before all other people, I ask you to tell us who is the one in this aya 6: 71
    قُلْ أَنَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُنَا وَلاَ يَضُرُّنَا وَنُرَدُّ عَلَى أَعْقَابِنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ كَالَّذِي اسْتَهْوَتْهُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فِي الأَرْضِ حَيْرَانَ لَهُ أَصْحَابٌ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى الْهُدَى ائْتِنَا قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ وَأُمِرْنَا لِنُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Shall we call, apart from God, on [idols] that neither profit nor hurt us, and shall we be turned back on our heels, even after that God has guided us; like one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed, [and] having some friends calling him to guidance, [saying to him]: "Come with us" Say: "God's guidance is the guidance, and we are commanded to surrender to the Lord of the worlds.")

    So who is the "one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed"?

    And go to all the commentators and consult all the interpreters, to tell us who is this one; and don't say he is anyone; because this is a parable about some event, which I shall not tell you now.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  44. #144  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    this movement can be stabilized thanks to inertia. The bigger an object spinning in space is, the higher is its 'resistance' against "movement-modification" caused by an external torque. Without any external torque, this object can spin freely without any "unstability".
    This is obviously wrong; whether the object is small or large.
    Idiot. Moron. He IS right and you are brain dead.
     

  45. #145  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.
    What A WONDERFULLY VAGUE description.

    Let me be clear about this:

    Give us names of SPECIFIC mountains and/or ranges, NAMES, understand.

    I will not stop asking until you have met this request.

    Most of the mountains on Earth came in this way, as pieces of the past broken up planets. This is particularly so in case of the very high mountains, like the Himalaya and other similar high mountains.

    I told you this in the previous reply on page 9 but it seems that you don't see when the Quran is cited.

    Moreover, the meteorites that brought the seed of life to our Earth came from four broken up planets. Each meteorite fell in some region, and God - be glorified - created the four human races.
     

  46. #146  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The very high mountains did almost come in this way: they landed and settled on Earth after being some pieces, of the destroyed planets, roaming in the space.
    What A WONDERFULLY VAGUE description.

    Let me be clear about this:

    Give us names of SPECIFIC mountains and/or ranges, NAMES, understand.

    I will not stop asking until you have met this request.

    Most of the mountains on Earth came in this way, as pieces of the past broken up planets. This is particularly so in case of the very high mountains, like the Himalaya and other similar high mountains.

    I told you this in the previous reply on page 9 but it seems that you don't see when the Quran is cited.

    Moreover, the meteorites that brought the seed of life to our Earth came from four broken up planets. Each meteorite fell in some region, and God - be glorified - created the four human races.
    This still falls in the category of vague and non-committal answers.

    Specific range or mountain NAMES.
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    This is what you have been told in lectures and you believed it straightforward
    Not lectures, my friend; books. Secondly, do you have any proof for your version of a comet? And please don't quote the Quran again. Have you ever observed a comet and seen it with your own eyes? Do you seriously think that men of science would lie about something as insignificant as a comet?

    The Quran came to correct the past heavenly books that have been distorted: the Torah revealed to Moses, and the Gospel revealed to Jesus;
    and the Quran confirms the Ten Commandments, particulraly the First and the most important of these Commandments: which declares that God is One without associate or patron.
    And who invented the notion of God, my friend? Mankind. Deny it if you wish, but if God exists, shouldn't we know by now, for certain, that he exists?

    The Quran does not claim to correct the other books, and its teachings are vastly different from the ones in the Gospel and the Torah.

    Most of the mountains on Earth came in this way, as pieces of the past broken up planets. This is particularly so in case of the very high mountains, like the Himalaya and other similar high mountains.

    I told you this in the previous reply on page 9 but it seems that you don't see when the Quran is cited.
    Of course we won't see. Science is based on observation, experiment and fact, not on the wisdom or the words of God. We have no reason to believe that the Quran must be correct.

    The Himalayas are much younger than other mountains. If they did come from broken pieces of planets, where are the planets? Shouldn't there be something we can use to identify which kind of planet it comes from? But there is no evidence to suggest this.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    This is obviously wrong; whether the object is small or large.
    yeah! yeah! As wrong as your ludicrous theory of fallen mountains :P


    Is it stated in the aya that the rocks fall down from the mountain? Or is it you who postulate this?

    Indeed, it's no stated in this verse that rocks fall down from the mountain. That's why I said that it can means so. Plus, this verse doesn't support your interpretation either.
    Indeed, "rocks that fall" is a very vague statement.

    Besides, if this verse really support your interpretation, don't forget that it would rather state that rocks fall because they are attracted to the Earth, not due to fear for Allah.

    In this verse, these rocks, if they fall from the sky, can be clay stone; it's in this way that Allah punished ancient people who used to cause mischief.





    Some people have denied the interpretation of the Quran, as did they deny the revealing of the Quran in the past, and as had they denied Moses and the other apostles.

    This is in the Quran 10: 39
    بَلْ كَذَّبُواْ بِمَا لَمْ يُحِيطُواْ بِعِلْمِهِ وَلَمَّا يَأْتِهِمْ تَأْوِيلُهُ كَذَلِكَ كَذَّبَ الَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ فَانظُرْ كَيْفَ كَانَ عَاقِبَةُ الظَّالِمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (But [actually] they [: the people of Prophet Mohammed] have cried lies to the [mysterious ayat of the Quran: the 'similitudes'], the knowledge of which they comprehend not,

    and even when the interpretation thereof will come to them [at the time of the Mahdi-Paraclite, they will also cry lies.]

    Even so those [unbelieving nations] that were before them cried lies [to their apostles];

    then see [O Mohammed] what end was of the wrong-doers [: was it not destruction and ruining?])

    To demonstrate this, I gave you the aya 2: 17 and told you who the one that sought fire was? And what was the implication of the parable? And I told you to seek the interpretation with all the commentators of the Quran; but you evaded and could not find the answer; but evenso you did not admit it.

    So now – because you claim this interpretation is not correct – and before all other people, I ask you to tell us who is the one in this aya 6: 71
    قُلْ أَنَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُنَا وَلاَ يَضُرُّنَا وَنُرَدُّ عَلَى أَعْقَابِنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ كَالَّذِي اسْتَهْوَتْهُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فِي الأَرْضِ حَيْرَانَ لَهُ أَصْحَابٌ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى الْهُدَى ائْتِنَا قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ وَأُمِرْنَا لِنُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Shall we call, apart from God, on [idols] that neither profit nor hurt us, and shall we be turned back on our heels, even after that God has guided us; like one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed, [and] having some friends calling him to guidance, [saying to him]: "Come with us" Say: "God's guidance is the guidance, and we are commanded to surrender to the Lord of the worlds.")

    So who is the "one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed"?

    And go to all the commentators and consult all the interpreters, to tell us who is this one; and don't say he is anyone; because this is a parable about some event, which I shall not tell you now.

    I denied your interpretation because your author interprets a verse a posteriori to find scientific statement in vague verses of the Qur'an: as I said, he exagerates on the tafseer. He add meaning to verses to make them 'stuck' with modern science. It's ONLY after scientists find a theory that concordists twist the translation (thus the meanings) of vague verses, and even take it out of context and then say: "oh! this verse does foretell such a theory!".
    That's not an objective work.

    Thus, I won't answer questions about Qur'an anymore because we are in a "scientific" forum. (you do concordism, so don't wonder that your thread was put in pseudoscience forum).





    Most of the mountains on Earth came in this way, as pieces of the past broken up planets. This is particularly so in case of the very high mountains, like the Himalaya and other similar high mountains.

    I told you this in the previous reply on page 9 but it seems that you don't see when the Quran is cited.

    Moreover, the meteorites that brought the seed of life to our Earth came from four broken up planets. Each meteorite fell in some region, and God - be glorified - created the four human races.

    High mountains? Regarding Himalayas, you're wrong, they were formed through the collision of Indian and Eurasian continents.
    Regarding Andes, you're still wrong, they were formed by subduction.

    Thus, tectonic factors can "build up" high mountains. Denying that reveals nothing but your ignorance.


    Like Paleoichneum, I still ask you specific names of those fallen mountains.
     

  49. #149  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Most of the mountains on Earth came in this way, as pieces of the past broken up planets. This is particularly so in case of the very high mountains, like the Himalaya and other similar high mountains.
    The Himalayas are still rising, in other words, the origins of their creation are still at work. (hint: the indian and eurasian landmasses are still colliding)

    Could you please tell us how sea creatures turned to fossils 200 million years old managed to get to the top of the Himalayas if the mountains fell to earth from space?
     

  50. #150  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Not lectures, my friend; books. Secondly, do you have any proof for your version of a comet? And please don't quote the Quran again. Have you ever observed a comet and seen it with your own eyes? Do you seriously think that men of science would lie about something as insignificant as a comet?
    Lectures or books have the same implication here.

    There have been many comets seen by people as fireballs, and there had been many craters attributed to comet impacts.

    I saw the comet of 1997, with my own eyes; it was visible to all people with its manifest tail, and this is not denied by Astronomers and all people who saw it.

    I didn't say that scientists lied, but they were wrong in some of their opinions and explanations.

    While your pleading that I should not quote the Quran; it is not accepted; this is according to the Quran 6: 114
    أَفَغَيْرَ اللّهِ أَبْتَغِي حَكَمًا وَهُوَ الَّذِي أَنَزَلَ إِلَيْكُمُ الْكِتَابَ مُفَصَّلاً وَالَّذِينَ آتَيْنَاهُمُ الْكِتَابَ يَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ مُنَزَّلٌ مِّن رَّبِّكَ بِالْحَقِّ فَلاَ تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ الْمُمْتَرِينَ
    The explanation:
    (Shall I take those [Jewish scholars], other than God, for judge [to judge my prophethood], when it is He Who has sent to you [people, this] scripture [: the Quran], fully expounded [with evident proofs of my truthfulness]?

    Those [Jewish scholars] to whom We gave the Scripture [: the Torah, aforetime] know that this [Quran] has been revealed [to you, Mohammed] from your Lord with the true [religion of the monotheism: against idolatry], so be not [O Mohammed] of those who doubt.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    And who invented the notion of God, my friend? Mankind. Deny it if you wish, but if God exists, shouldn't we know by now, for certain, that he exists?
    This is what you say and assert, which is not the truth at all.

    The Creator sent His envoys to people in order to warn them of the consequences of their wrong-doing, transgression, idolatry and associating others with Him;
    and to teach people about the next afterlife which is the everlasting spiritual life, and to save them from the darkness of ignorance to the light of monotheism and knowledge.

    This is in order they should not say on the Judgment Day: "We were unaware of this Judgment, Hell and Paradise; had You sent us an apostle, we would have been monotheists and kind to the poor and needy."

    The believers know for certain that God does exist; He is the Creator; although the disbelievers may deny God now, in spite of the fact that they will admit all this when they will encounter the punishment just following their death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The Quran does not claim to correct the other books, and its teachings are vastly different from the ones in the Gospel and the Torah.
    The Quran testifies that both the Torah and the Gospel were revealed from God.
    What the Quran contradicts; it is concerning the distortion and alteration in these books, but it confirms the original books revealed from God to the prophets.

    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  51. #151  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Of course we won't see. Science is based on observation, experiment and fact, not on the wisdom or the words of God. We have no reason to believe that the Quran must be correct.
    But this is not scientific at all; at least they should consider and investigate and search to discover that the Quran is the authentic word of God – be glorified.

    As in the Quran 41: 53
    سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
    The explanation:
    (We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky]
    and among themselves,
    until it will become manifest to them that [the Quran] is the truth.
    Is it not enough that your Lord [O Mohammed] does witness all things?)

    [ The interpretation: ]
    • (We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky]) means: the portents or the signs of the approaching of Doomsday; such as:
    >> the fixation of Moon and its cleavage,
    >> the cessation of the earth from spinning around itself,
    >> and the continuation of the night in one side of the earth and the day in the other side,
    >> and the other extraordinary events.
    • ( and among themselves): This sign is the Mehdi or the Paraclete [or Elijah of the last days] who will teach and guide them, and explain the Quranic revelations that are mysterious to them, so that the signs will be both scientific and practical; the sign of the Mehdi or the Paraclete is a scientific one; while the signs which will appear on the horizons will be practical.
    • (until it will become manifest to them that [the Quran] is the truth) means:
    until it will be clear to them that the Quran is revealed from God, and that Mohammed did not forge or invent it, as do some of them claim.

    Therefore, the Quran tells them many things, and such things they will verify and prove to be the truth better than many of their mistakes, and then they will believe and know that the Quran is the true word of God and Mohammed did not invent it of his own accord.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...d_on_That_Day_


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The Himalayas are much younger than other mountains. If they did come from broken pieces of planets, where are the planets? Shouldn't there be something we can use to identify which kind of planet it comes from? But there is no evidence to suggest this.
    It may be some other mountains are younger or older.
    The past planets had broken up and disappeared, and their portions remained and fell on the new planets: Earth and the other planets of our solar system.

    The past planets were somewhat like our present Earth and planets.

    The evidence of the past planets that were destroyed, lies in the large number of meteorites and celestial rocks which are the remnants of those broken up planets.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  52. #152  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The Creator sent His envoys to people in order to warn them of the consequences of their wrong-doing, transgression, idolatry and associating others with Him;
    and to teach people about the next afterlife which is the everlasting spiritual life, and to save them from the darkness of ignorance to the light of monotheism and knowledge.
    Like John Smith, for example, who is a prophet that came after Muhammad. Hence Muhammad was not the last prophet. Muhammad has been supplanted.
     

  53. #153  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Of course we won't see. Science is based on observation, experiment and fact, not on the wisdom or the words of God. We have no reason to believe that the Quran must be correct.
    But this is not scientific at all; at least they should consider and investigate and search to discover that the Quran is the authentic word of God – be glorified.
    The Quran condones and promotes lying and killing, for all Muslims towards non-Muslims, under any conditions Muslims would see fit.

    A simple cartoon drawing sparks mob violence and the call for heads to roll. This is the religion of peace?
     

  54. #154  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Besides, if this verse really support your interpretation, don't forget that it would rather state that rocks fall because they are attracted to the Earth, not due to fear for Allah.
    God in the Quran said that they fall down for the fear of God. As He said in another aya that God brings the sun from the East. Because everything in the universe is according to His will.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    In this verse, these rocks, if they fall from the sky, can be clay stone; it's in this way that Allah punished ancient people who used to cause mischief.
    Where in the Quran that these were clay stones?
    So now you speak about the Quran, although this is a science forum, but when I challenged you and others to give the name of the one mentioned in this aya, you evaded and said: this is a science forum and I shall not speak about the Quran, while in fact your pride and stubbornness prevent you from admitting that you don't know.

    In what follows I challenged you and others to give the name of this one in this parable, but you evaded the answer; because you don't know, and in spite of this you do not admit your ignorance about who was this one in this parable.

    So now – because you claim this interpretation is not correct – and before all other people, I ask you to tell us who is the one in this aya 6: 71
    قُلْ أَنَدْعُو مِن دُونِ اللّهِ مَا لاَ يَنفَعُنَا وَلاَ يَضُرُّنَا وَنُرَدُّ عَلَى أَعْقَابِنَا بَعْدَ إِذْ هَدَانَا اللّهُ كَالَّذِي اسْتَهْوَتْهُ الشَّيَاطِينُ فِي الأَرْضِ حَيْرَانَ لَهُ أَصْحَابٌ يَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى الْهُدَى ائْتِنَا قُلْ إِنَّ هُدَى اللّهِ هُوَ الْهُدَىَ وَأُمِرْنَا لِنُسْلِمَ لِرَبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Shall we call, apart from God, on [idols] that neither profit nor hurt us, and shall we be turned back on our heels, even after that God has guided us; like one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed, [and] having some friends calling him to guidance, [saying to him]: "Come with us" Say: "God's guidance is the guidance, and we are commanded to surrender to the Lord of the worlds.")

    So who is the "one deceived by the devils in the earth, so was perplexed"?

    And go to all the commentators and consult all the interpreters, to tell us who is this one; and don't say he is anyone; because this is a parable about some event, which I shall not tell you now.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Thus, I won't answer questions about Qur'an anymore because we are in a "scientific" forum. (you do concordism, so don't wonder that your thread was put in pseudoscience forum).


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  55. #155  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Idiot. Moron. He IS right and you are brain dead.
    If you are the forum professor, then certainly this is an excellent university
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    God in the Quran said that they fall down for the fear of God. As He said in another aya that God brings the sun from the East. Because everything in the universe is according to His will.
    They fall down because of Earth's gravity and the Qur'an bring a metaphysical explanation, so you should avoid doing concordism with this religious book.



    Where in the Quran that these were clay stones?
    Do you believe that meteorites is mentionned in it, eh? Even your website mention a verse where Allah punished people with clay stones.


    So now you speak about the Quran, although this is a science forum, but when I challenged you and others to give the name of the one mentioned in this aya, you evaded and said:


    this is a science forum and I shall not speak about the Quran, while in fact your pride and stubbornness prevent you from admitting that you don't know.
    Err... no! pseudoscience forum instead. You talk me about stubborness eh?
    In what follows I challenged you and others to give the name of this one in this parable, but you evaded the answer; because you don't know, and in spite of this you do not admit your ignorance about who was this one in this parable.
    Parables? Who cares now?

    You don't first admit that your baseless theory on fallen mountains is wrong!
    Fix that, then criticise me.
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Parables? Who cares now?

    So here you don't care about parables of the Quran, while before you wanted to interpret the ayat according to your opinion, and bring Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas and Al-Jalalayn to witness

    And still you don't answer the question, but in stead you ask some other questions to evade answering my question about who was the one mentioned in the aya.

    At least you should admit that you don't know; which is half the knowledge: to admit that you don't know, and that all these commentators do not know either; but to insist on ignorance and do not admit it: this is the stubbornness.
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    So now you speak about the Quran, although this is a science forum,[...]
    Who is the first person that brought ad nauseam quranic verses and an islamic website ( as reference) in this "scientific" forum?





    So here you don't care about parables of the Quran, while before you wanted to interpret the ayat according to your opinion, and bring Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas and Al-Jalalayn to witness Rolling Eyes

    And still you don't answer the question, but in stead you ask some other questions to evade answering my question about who was the one mentioned in the aya.

    At least you should admit that you don't know; which is half the knowledge: to admit that you don't know, and that all these commentators do not know either; but to insist on ignorance and do not admit it: this is the stubbornness. Smile

    I interpret verses according to my opinion? Hey! You're putting your fault on me!
    Contrary to these scholars, you or your interpreter almost never use other verses or hadiths to interpret unclear verses. In some verses, he even added information (based on nothing except his own mind) in brackets to make them 'stick' with his own intepretation (for instance, the story of the one who kindled fire: in all translations and all interpretations, the verse merely states that hypocrites are like the one who sought fire; but your intepreter say they are like the folk of the one who sought fire. He clearly modify the verse by adding an piece of information whose link with this verse is baseless.

    I can admit i don't know: for instance the last verse you bring (about rock falling for fear of Allah), I give a possibility (i say it can be...) for i didn't say (it's nothing but...)


    So, it isn't really a matter of 'he doesn't know' but of something else: your interpreter's tafseer lack of rigour and is far-fetched; I showed you why with his interpretation of sky and heavens.




    So, instead of talking about my alleged stubborness, first find evidences for your baseless theory of fallen mountains; indeed you're blindly believing a pseudoscientific theory (isn't that stubborness?); THEN you can deal with my alleged faults.
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Contrary to these scholars, you or your interpreter almost never use other verses or hadiths to interpret unclear verses.
    The late interpreter of the Quran, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly, did use the ayat of the Quran to interpret some other ayat, and used some hadiths also, and used the Arab poetry to indicate the meaning of some words;

    but taking into consideration that Prophet Mohammed - salam be to him - did not leave an interpretation of the Quran, but only some ayat that he was asked and he answered about, while many other ayat he did not give their meaning and said: "God is All-Knowing; I don't know; I heard it as such from the angel."

    Moreover, not all the hadiths are authentic and true; some hadiths are fabricated and falsely attributed to the Prophet, when he in fact did not say such hadiths. While the Quran as a whole is authentic and all of it is true and preserved intact from any change or alteration.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    In some verses, he even added information (based on nothing except his own mind) in brackets to make them 'stick' with his own intepretation (for instance, the story of the one who kindled fire: in all translations and all interpretations, the verse merely states that hypocrites are like the one who sought fire; but your intepreter say they are like the folk of the one who sought fire. He clearly modify the verse by adding an piece of information whose link with this verse is baseless.
    These interpreters came many many years following the death of the prophet, and they are not prophets but only researchers and good men; they tried to find the correct meaning according to their understanding and many evidences that they had; if the prophet himself does not know the meaning of some ayat of the Quran, how can they know its meaning?

    But as shaikh Tantawi, the chief of the Azhar at his time, said: "The interpreter of the Quran has to know many sciences thoroughly: language, grammer, poetry, history, geography, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry ...etc and he enumerated about 16 or 17 disciplines of knowledge that the interpreter should know very well OR inspiration from God which will be better than all such sciences."

    So the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly did not know these sciences, but he was inspired the interpretation of the Quran, and he gave an interpretaion that even the most famous clerics and scholars could not know,
    and solved the puzzles of the letters and many mysterious ayat of the Quran by favor of God and His surplus as "God-be exalted- promised to explain to people in the future what was mysterious of the Quranic revelations and what they could not understand about it.

    That is His saying-be exalted- in the Quran, chapter 38: 88
    وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ
    The explanation:( And you [people] shall surely come to know, after a time, the truth thereof.) It means after a long period of time.

    Moreover, God-be exalted- said in chapter 75: 19
    ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ
    The explanation:
    (Then [after a long time] We have to explain it [to people])

    It means: the explanation of what revelations of the Quran were mysterious to them, and which they do not understand their meaning.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...“Abrogation”:_


    eanassir
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com




     

  60. #160  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The late interpreter of the Quran, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly, did use the ayat of the Quran to interpret some other ayat, and used some hadiths also, and used the Arab poetry to indicate the meaning of some words;

    but taking into consideration that Prophet Mohammed - salam be to him - did not leave an interpretation of the Quran, but only some ayat that he was asked and he answered about, while many other ayat he did not give their meaning and said: "God is All-Knowing; I don't know; I heard it as such from the angel."

    Moreover, not all the hadiths are authentic and true; some hadiths are fabricated and falsely attributed to the Prophet, when he in fact did not say such hadiths. While the Quran as a whole is authentic and all of it is true and preserved intact from any change or alteration.


    termina wrote:
    In some verses, he even added information (based on nothing except his own mind) in brackets to make them 'stick' with his own intepretation (for instance, the story of the one who kindled fire: in all translations and all interpretations, the verse merely states that hypocrites are like the one who sought fire; but your intepreter say they are like the folk of the one who sought fire. He clearly modify the verse by adding an piece of information whose link with this verse is baseless.


    These interpreters came many many years following the death of the prophet, and they are not prophets but only researchers and good men; they tried to find the correct meaning according to their understanding and many evidences that they had; if the prophet himself does not know the meaning of some ayat of the Quran, how can they know its meaning?

    But as shaikh Tantawi, the chief of the Azhar at his time, said: "The interpreter of the Quran has to know many sciences thoroughly: language, grammer, poetry, history, geography, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry ...etc and he enumerated about 16 or 17 disciplines of knowledge that the interpreter should know very well OR inspiration from God which will be better than all such sciences."

    So the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly did not know these sciences, but he was inspired the interpretation of the Quran, and he gave an interpretaion that even the most famous clerics and scholars could not know,
    and solved the puzzles of the letters and many mysterious ayat of the Quran by favor of God and His surplus as "God-be exalted- promised to explain to people in the future what was mysterious of the Quranic revelations and what they could not understand about it.

    That is His saying-be exalted- in the Quran, chapter 38: 88
    وَلَتَعْلَمُنَّ نَبَأَهُ بَعْدَ حِينٍ
    The explanation And you [people] shall surely come to know, after a time, the truth thereof.) It means after a long period of time.

    Moreover, God-be exalted- said in chapter 75: 19
    ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيْنَا بَيَانَهُ
    The explanation:
    (Then [after a long time] We have to explain it [to people])

    It means: the explanation of what revelations of the Quran were mysterious to them, and which they do not understand their meaning.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/e...“Abrogation”:_


    eanassir
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com


    Your interpreter inteprets the same word as he wants just to make the Quran scientific ; for instance "heavens" means one time the planets, then the "gaseous atmosphere", ect...

    and where are his evidences for the existance of several "7 heavens"? Nowhere! if he used hadiths here (for instance that of Muhammad's Miraj), he would know that this interpretation is wrong.






    The explanation: ( ‘My son, even if [the righteous deed] be [as trivial] as the weight of a grain of mustard seed*, or in a rock or in the heavens or in the earth, God will bring it forth [for judgment]; surely, God is Most Kind, Most Aware.)

    The ‘rock’, here, means the moon. Actually, God –be exalted –said في صَخرَةٍ i.e.( in a rock), and He didn’t say ‘in the rock’; because He means: in one of the moons; for this reason, He didn’t mention the word ‘the’.


    First, this verse is a reported speech, these are not the words of Allah, but those of Luqman. So, the alleged knowledge on the surface of the Moon should be given to Luqman, not to Allah.

    When Luqman said 'a rock', he might refered to any rock. But if he said the rock, the latter would be a precise rock. And it's a stretch of imagination to see in the word 'rock' a reference to the Moon. If there were a reference to the Moon, why doesn't the verse bring more precisions on this rocks?

    If every person thinks exactly like your interpreter, one would claim that rock means Mars, according to another person that would be Mercury, ect...

    What is obvious in this interpretation is that your intepreter changes the meaning of a word. But I'm afraid, the word "a rock" stays "a rock", it doesn't transform into "Moon" as time goes.

    Besides, if he didn't know from science that planets and Moon have a rocky surface, do you think that he would know (from this verse) this piece of information? No! Like other concordists, he does anything so that a verse 'foretell' a theory. When does he do that? ...Surprise, surprise, almost always a posteriori, just like Nostradamus' prophecies.











    Plus, what makes me laugh is the fact that he brings a scientific tafseer whereas he is an ignorant at science! Indeed he blindly claims that:

    * Earth were a sun, then the surface of the latter became cold.... then we have our Earth. No comment...

    * The Moon spins around the Earth without rotating around itself. his argument? an analogy of a father playing with his child!!! Oh, crap!

    * Arizona Crater was due to a comet.
    Whereas scientists have evidences that it was a meteor -they took samples of scattered rocks of that cosmic object-!.

    * Some mountains litterally fall upon the Earth. whereas i showed you that it's totally wrong and baseless

    * Rotation of heavenly bodies are caused by heat and revolution of the particles around the nucleus. Whereas, every astronomers know that the impact of asteroids and 'planetoids' could 'give' the Earth a rotational movement and then, as there are no friction in space, our planet conserved its angular momentum so far.


    * The tides aren't caused by Moon's attraction.
    So, why, when the Moon the Sun and our planet are on the same axis, are the tides stronger? Apparently, your interpreter ignore gravity interaction and provide naive arguments.

    Obviously, your interpreter is stubborn and pretentious, because he sometimes claims that he knows astronomy and geology better than all astronomers and all geologists. Therefore, his scientific tasfeer is far-fetched and non-credible.
     

  61. #161  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    At least you should admit that you don't know; which is half the knowledge: to admit that you don't know, and that all these commentators do not know either; but to insist on ignorance and do not admit it: this is the stubbornness.
    Does anyone have a full-length mirror we can hold up to eanassir?
     

  62. #162  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Your interpreter inteprets the same word as he wants just to make the Quran scientific ; for instance "heavens" means one time the planets, then the "gaseous atmosphere", ect...

    The Quran is a scientific book; because it is the word of God, the All-Knowing Who created the universe and is the same One That revealed the heavenly books including the Quran which is the last revealed book; therefore God knows best about His creation and about His revealed Quran, as in the Quran 25: 6
    قُلْ أَنزَلَهُ الَّذِي يَعْلَمُ السِّرَّ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا
    The explanation:
    (Say [O Mohammed, to them]: "[It is God], That revealed [the Quran], Who knows the secret [that is] in the heavens and the earth; for surely He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.)



    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    and where are his evidences for the existance of several "7 heavens"? Nowhere! if he used hadiths here (for instance that of Muhammad's Miraj), he would know that this interpretation is wrong.

    The seven heavens:
    While about the heavens: they are seven in many ayat of the Quran, like the aya 2: 29
    هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُم مَّا فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَاء فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
    The explanation:
    (It is He [: God] Who has created for you all that is in the earth, then aimed at [building] the sky and fashioned them as seven heavens, and He is the Omniscient about every thing.)

    Here, the aya speaks about the seven gaseous layers of the atmosphere that are above the region of the cloud, i.e. above the troposphere.
    And there are many ayat with the same implication.

    And like His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 23: 86
    قُلْ مَن رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens, and the Lord of the Throne [of Glory] Supreme?")

    So, this aya speaks about the ethereal spiritual heavens.
    And there are many ayat with the same implication.

    The different implications of the word "sky or heaven" and "heavens" as mentioned in the Quran:

    In Arabic: it indicates anything above you: the ceiling is the sky of the room.

    In singular it means the space.

    In plural it gives one of the three meanings:
    1- The gaseous layers of the atmosphere of the planet.
    2- The ancient ethereal spiritual heavens (or the kingdom of heavens as mentioned in the Gospel.)
    3- The planets and the earth.

    The interpreter gave some rules to know which kind of heavens is indicated in any particular aya.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Sky_or_Heaven_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Gaseous_Heavens
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Ethereal_Heavens
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The_Material_Heavens_[:_the_Planets]


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  63. #163  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The Quran is a scientific book; because it is the word of God, the All-Knowing Who created the universe and is the same One That revealed the heavenly books including the Quran which is the last revealed book; therefore God knows best about His creation and about His revealed Quran,
    If I accept, for the purpose of discussion, that there is a God and that this God is the Allah of the Quran, what you have written still appears to be wrong.

    Science is a way of finding out about the universe. It involves observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. It does not involve accepting the word of anyone, or anything, including God. Therefore, the Quran cannot be a scientific book since its knowledge is revealed knowledge, not knowledge derived through scientific investigation.

    Moreover, science is methodologically naturalistic. That is to say, the presumption of the scientific method is that there are no supernatural explanations required to explain why and how things are. This also excludes the claim that the Quran is a scientific book.
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    First, this verse is a reported speech, these are not the words of Allah, but those of Luqman. So, the alleged knowledge on the surface of the Moon should be given to Luqman, not to Allah.

    The words in the aya are the words of God word by word and letter by letter; He told about what Luqman [: Tobias] said advising his son. Luqman did not speak Arabic, while the Quran is the word of God revealed in Arabic.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    But I'm afraid, the word "a rock" stays "a rock", it doesn't transform into "Moon" as time goes.
    It will not be transformed, and the Quran is preserved without any alteration or changing. We say the Quran aya in Arabic as it is, then we give its explanation in English or in any other language.

    However, you and many others give the translation of the meaning of the Quranic ayat, without giving the text of the Quran with it, when this is wrong; because the English reader may imagine that your translation is the Quran, when the translation is only the translation of the meaning of the Quran, whereas the Quran is only in Arabic.

    Therefore, the Quranic aya must be mentioned in Arabic, accompanied with its explanation in English or other languages.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Like other concordists, he does anything so that a verse 'foretell' a theory. When does he do that? ...Surprise, surprise, almost always a posteriori, just like Nostradamus' prophecies.

    If this was true, then he would not have given many things contrary to many theories, and many men (relating themselves to science like you) would have objected to many things he said.

    If he was concordist or posteriori as have you claimed, then he would have given all his words in concordance with the prevalent theories of Astronomy, Geology and Science.

    Moreover, the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible said: there are people created on the planets, when this has not been proved yet.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...Are_Inhabited_

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Plus, what makes me laugh is the fact that he brings a scientific tafseer whereas he is an ignorant at science!
    Prophet Mohammed was illiterate: did not write or read, then how could he bring the Quran: an eloquent and scientific miracle, unless the Quran is from God Himself?

    In the same way, this man did not study the science and language grammar, then how could he bring the contradiction and correction of many theories in Astronomy, Geology and other disciplines of science, in spite of that he did not graduate at the primary school even, unless he was inspired by God ?

    As God said in the Quran 2: 269
    يُؤتِي الْحِكْمَةَ مَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُؤْتَ الْحِكْمَةَ فَقَدْ أُوتِيَ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الأَلْبَابِ
    The explanation:
    ([God] gives the wisdom to whom He pleases; and whoso is given the wisdom, has truly received much good. And none receives admonition but men of understanding.)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    http://man-after-death.t35.com
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com
     

  65. #165  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The Quran is a scientific book; because it is the word of God, the All-Knowing Who created the universe and is the same One That revealed the heavenly books including the Quran which is the last revealed book; therefore God knows best about His creation and about His revealed Quran,
    If I accept, for the purpose of discussion, that there is a God and that this God is the Allah of the Quran, what you have written still appears to be wrong.

    Science is a way of finding out about the universe. It involves observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation and testing. It does not involve accepting the word of anyone, or anything, including God. Therefore, the Quran cannot be a scientific book since its knowledge is revealed knowledge, not knowledge derived through scientific investigation.

    Moreover, science is methodologically naturalistic. That is to say, the presumption of the scientific method is that there are no supernatural explanations required to explain why and how things are. This also excludes the claim that the Quran is a scientific book.

    The Quran and science

    The Quran includes a large number of ayat with scientific implication: some of such ayat have been proved and others are still not proved, which have preceded the science in this respect.

    Some ayat in various disciplines of science have been proved true: like the Earth is spherical, and many ayat about the phases of the embryo development …etc.

    Other ayat indicating the existence of life on the planets: vegetation, animal and man. Such thing has not been proved yet.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...Are_Inhabited_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...pated_Meeting_

    All such ayat indicate the Quran has been revealed from God – be glorified – as had He revealed before the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus.

    As did He say in the Quran 6: 113
    وَلِتَصْغَى إِلَيْهِ أَفْئِدَةُ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِالآخِرَةِ وَلِيَرْضَوْهُ وَلِيَقْتَرِفُواْ مَا هُم مُّقْتَرِفُونَ
    The explanation:
    (To such [interpretation of the Quran] will the hearts of those incline: those who believe not in the Hereafter:
    they will be well-pleased with it, and will earn [from it] what they may earn.)

    It means: if they do not believe in the Quran at your time, Mohammed; surely they will believe in the future when they will see the marvels of the Glorious Quran, and discover it is the true word of God; and then they will scoop a lot of its knowledge and wisdom.

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...d_on_That_Day_


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  66. #166  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The Quran includes a large number of ayat with scientific implication: some of such ayat have been proved and others are still not proved, which have preceded the science in this respect.
    Having scientific implications is not the same thing as being scientific. The budgetary decisions of the US congress have scientific implications, but they are not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Some ayat in various disciplines of science have been proved true: like the Earth is spherical, and many ayat about the phases of the embryo development …etc.
    the spherical nature of the world was well established long before the Quran was written. How can you claim this as being a divine revelation that preceded the science?

    All such ayat indicate the Quran has been revealed from God – be glorified – as had He revealed before the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus.
    I hate to repeat myself, but you did not respond to this point. Since the Quran is revealing these points, not arriving at them by scientific methodology, then it is wholly wrong to describe the Quran as a scientific book. Do you understand this point? Do you accept this point?
     

  67. #167  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    The Quran includes a large number of ayat with scientific implication: some of such ayat have been proved and others are still not proved, which have preceded the science in this respect.
    Having scientific implications is not the same thing as being scientific. The budgetary decisions of the US congress have scientific implications, but they are not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Some ayat in various disciplines of science have been proved true: like the Earth is spherical, and many ayat about the phases of the embryo development …etc.
    the spherical nature of the world was well established long before the Quran was written. How can you claim this as being a divine revelation that preceded the science?

    All such ayat indicate the Quran has been revealed from God – be glorified – as had He revealed before the Torah to Moses and the Gospel to Jesus.
    I hate to repeat myself, but you did not respond to this point. Since the Quran is revealing these points, not arriving at them by scientific methodology, then it is wholly wrong to describe the Quran as a scientific book. Do you understand this point? Do you accept this point?

    The Quran and science

    Of course the Quran does not include equations; it was not revealed for this purpose; but they take such words as yours to claim that the Quran is against science or that the true science disproves the Quran, or that the Quran includes things that are contrary to the true science; and so in this way they try to prove the Quran is not from God and that it is fabricated by Mohammed and some other men. While all this is wrong and untrue.

    On purpose, the Quran was revealed somewhat different from the other heavenly books in this respect: it includes a larrge number of ayat the implication of which will only be known in the future; because people at that time could not know or imagine such things as do we know today; therefore the interpretation of such ayat will give the Quran a time extension, and they will know for certain that it includes things they were not aware of before.

    The Quran was revealed by God as light to all mankind (and genie-kind), it includes many scientific miracles; when God ordered man to contemplate and ponder the marvels and signs of the universe and nature that He created.

    This is specially so because the Quran is the last heavenly book and included the mentioning of many portents of the approach of Doomsday.

    And what you said about the sphericity of the Earth, claiming it was known before the Quran; it was not known publicly and generally: only may be academically but not to the general people specially to the people of Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammed; and like some guys in some other forums, you speak about this knowingly; haven't you read about Magellan and others and what mockery they faced? And this was in Europe in the middle ages or after that.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...and_the_Night_


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  68. #168  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    And what you said about the sphericity of the Earth, claiming it was known before the Quran; it was not known publicly and generally: only may be academically but not to the general people specially to the people of Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammed
    It was known to Pythagoras, Herodotus, Plato, and Aristotle from about 570BC, way before Muhammad. So therefore you should worship the Greek pantheon. This is by your own logic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheric...ly_development
     

  69. #169  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Of course the Quran does not include equations; it was not revealed for this purpose; but they take such words as yours to claim that the Quran is against science or that the true science disproves the Quran, or that the Quran includes things that are contrary to the true science; and so in this way they try to prove the Quran is not from God and that it is fabricated by Mohammed and some other men. While all this is wrong and untrue.
    I have not claimed that the Quran is against science.
    I have not said that true science disproves the Quran.
    I have not said that the Quran includes things that are contrary to true science.
    I have not sought to prove that the Quran is not from God.

    I have no idea why you have made the statements above.

    I am simply stating that you are wrong to say that the Quran is a scientific book. And I ask you again - please reply with simple yes or no - do you understand this point? Do you accept it?

    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    And what you said about the sphericity of the Earth, claiming it was known before the Quran; it was not known publicly and generally: only may be academically but not to the general people specially to the people of Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammed;
    Irrelevant.
     

  70. #170  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    The Quran

    ... is fabricated by Mohammed and some other men.
    That is the most sense you've ever made.

    The Quran was revealed by God as light to all mankind (and genie-kind)
    Omnipotent beings held captive in bottles that grant wishes to their masters are currently depicted in feature-length cartoons from Disney. You must be a child.

    This is specially so because the Quran is the last heavenly book and included the mentioning of many portents of the approach of Doomsday.
    Not true. The Book of Mormon precludes the Quran as the last heavenly book.

    And what you said about the sphericity of the Earth, claiming it was known before the Quran; it was not known publicly and generally: only may be academically but not to the general people specially to the people of Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammed
    That may be true in Arabia, but not true in other parts of the world. Arabs were far from educated compared to other nations peoples who did understand.
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Of course we won't see. Science is based on observation, experiment and fact, not on the wisdom or the words of God. We have no reason to believe that the Quran must be correct.
    But this is not scientific at all; at least they should consider and investigate and search to discover that the Quran is the authentic word of God – be glorified.

    As in the Quran 41: 53
    سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّى يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ
    The explanation:
    (We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky]
    and among themselves,
    until it will become manifest to them that [the Quran] is the truth.
    Is it not enough that your Lord [O Mohammed] does witness all things?)

    [ The interpretation: ]
    • (We will show them Our portents [or signs] on the horizons [of the sky]) means: the portents or the signs of the approaching of Doomsday; such as:
    >> the fixation of Moon and its cleavage,
    >> the cessation of the earth from spinning around itself,
    >> and the continuation of the night in one side of the earth and the day in the other side,
    >> and the other extraordinary events.
    • ( and among themselves): This sign is the Mehdi or the Paraclete [or Elijah of the last days] who will teach and guide them, and explain the Quranic revelations that are mysterious to them, so that the signs will be both scientific and practical; the sign of the Mehdi or the Paraclete is a scientific one; while the signs which will appear on the horizons will be practical.
    • (until it will become manifest to them that [the Quran] is the truth) means:
    until it will be clear to them that the Quran is revealed from God, and that Mohammed did not forge or invent it, as do some of them claim.

    Therefore, the Quran tells them many things, and such things they will verify and prove to be the truth better than many of their mistakes, and then they will believe and know that the Quran is the true word of God and Mohammed did not invent it of his own accord.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...d_on_That_Day_


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    The Himalayas are much younger than other mountains. If they did come from broken pieces of planets, where are the planets? Shouldn't there be something we can use to identify which kind of planet it comes from? But there is no evidence to suggest this.
    It may be some other mountains are younger or older.
    The past planets had broken up and disappeared, and their portions remained and fell on the new planets: Earth and the other planets of our solar system.

    The past planets were somewhat like our present Earth and planets.

    The evidence of the past planets that were destroyed, lies in the large number of meteorites and celestial rocks which are the remnants of those broken up planets.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    So far, all our evidence points to this single fact: that most ancient knowledge, including in the Quran, is incorrect. In fact, I can show that jannat and jehannum cannot exist at all, according to the law of conservation of energy. And the moon will not stop in its path, according to Newton's First Law, and I can see no conceivable reason for the Earth to stop spinning.

    Also, the asteroid belt was once considered so, as the remains of a broken planet. This is false: the asteroid belt is actually the remains of a planet that was never fully formed, and have since been caught in Jupiter's gravitational field. In fact, this field protects us from many extraplanetary meteorites.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  72. #172  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    And what you said about the sphericity of the Earth, claiming it was known before the Quran; it was not known publicly and generally: only may be academically but not to the general people specially to the people of Arabia at the time of Prophet Mohammed
    It was known to Pythagoras, Herodotus, Plato, and Aristotle from about 570BC, way before Muhammad. So therefore you should worship the Greek pantheon. This is by your own logic.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheric...ly_development

    These were brilliant scientists of their time; but Mohammed did not know this, neither did he study such a thing, nor did he know Greek, nor even did he know how to read and write Arabic; what Quran he heard from the angel, he conveyed to people.

    And God revealed to him in the Quran 10: 16
    قُل لَّوْ شَاء اللّهُ مَا تَلَوْتُهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَلاَ أَدْرَاكُم بِهِ فَقَدْ لَبِثْتُ فِيكُمْ عُمُرًا مِّن قَبْلِهِ أَفَلاَ تَعْقِلُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Had God so willed [: to praise your idols], I should not have rehearsed it [:the Quran] to you, nor would He have acquainted you therewith;
    for I have tarried a long time [: forty years] with you, prior to this [revelation of the Quran;
    so did I – in any occasion – say to you that I am an apostle of God, or did I ever forbid you to worship idols?]
    Will you not then discern [the truth?]")

    It means: he was only tasked with the apostl-hood, before which he was unaware of such a thing, but later he did not stop until he broke up all the idols in Arabia. Neither did he know Greek nor Hebrew; he was illiterate: did not read and write.
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Of course the Quran does not include equations; it was not revealed for this purpose; but they take such words as yours to claim that the Quran is against science or that the true science disproves the Quran, or that the Quran includes things that are contrary to the true science; and so in this way they try to prove the Quran is not from God and that it is fabricated by Mohammed and some other men. While all this is wrong and untrue.
    I have not claimed that the Quran is against science.
    I have not said that true science disproves the Quran.
    I have not said that the Quran includes things that are contrary to true science.
    I have not sought to prove that the Quran is not from God.

    I have no idea why you have made the statements above.
    You didn't say that, but you said something that may imply to some people all this.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    I am simply stating that you are wrong to say that the Quran is a scientific book. And I ask you again - please reply with simple yes or no - do you understand this point? Do you accept it?
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
     

  74. #174  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
    Then there is no more to be said.
     

  75. #175  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
    Then there is no more to be said.
    Agreed, There is no point in any further discussion, and in fact there was no point in the past 12 pages either.
     

  76. #176  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    So far, all our evidence points to this single fact: that most ancient knowledge, including in the Quran, is incorrect.
    Is this according to some acquainted sources as they say in Journalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    In fact, I can show that jannat and jehannum cannot exist at all, according to the law of conservation of energy.
    In fact, the opposite is true. Why then don't you show all this science and benefit the humanity with your atheism

    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    And the moon will not stop in its path, according to Newton's First Law, and I can see no conceivable reason for the Earth to stop spinning.
    Why then have Venus and Mercury moved in this abnormal way: i.e. they do not spin around themselves?
    And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?

    "A press release announcing the forthcoming time warp points out that this is the 24th leap second added since 1972, the previous one having been added at the end of 2005."
    http://www.usno.navy.mil/pao/press/2...nd_Release.pdf


    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    Also, the asteroid belt was once considered so, as the remains of a broken planet. This is false: the asteroid belt is actually the remains of a planet that was never fully formed, and have since been caught in Jupiter's gravitational field. In fact, this field protects us from many extraplanetary meteorites.
    How can you believe such a movie story when you are a science related man? How can you be sure this is the case and such alleged planet was never fully formed, and have sicne been caught in Jupiter's gravitational field!?
     

  77. #177  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    what Quran he heard from the angel, he conveyed to people.
    You've just given us the reason why the Quran was created by Muhammad and a bunch of superstitious men.
     

  78. #178  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    what Quran he heard from the angel, he conveyed to people.
    You've just given us the reason why the Quran was created by Muhammad and a bunch of superstitious men.

    According to your logic, I don't know how have they assigned you a professor. your funny cartoon is better, although it is noisy. And you have spoken badly about Arabia, aren't you from Arabia and belonged to some sects there, then you apostatised? :?
     

  79. #179  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
    Then there is no more to be said.
    Because I am not English, I might have said some words that made John Galt resent: I meant only to say: I see that you want to go away and stop the discussion.

    And glory be to God! This will demonstrate to you John Galt that words may have an implication other what is meant by the speaker; therefore, your saying that the Quran is not a scientific book may bear some other implication and suggest to others that the Quran contradicts the science.

    Moreover, I explained to you that by saying the Quran is not scientific: this implies some other meaning which I do not accept. And I said that the Quran goes along with the true science, and does not contradict it.

    Therefore, you should pay attention to such words as "the Quran is not scientific" that it may suggest to others that "the Quran says things against the science" which I absolutely reject.
     

  80. #180  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
    Then there is no more to be said.
    Agreed, There is no point in any further discussion, and in fact there was no point in the past 12 pages either.
    Welcome, and come well again
     

  81. #181  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    And you have spoken badly about Arabia
    I did no such thing, you are a liar. I have "spoken badly" about your warped and twisted perception of a cult book of myths and superstitions, that might convince small children who still believe in santa claus and the easter bunny, but it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone over 12 years old.
     

  82. #182  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,196
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    I understand this point, but I don't accept it; because the Quran is more than scientific; its facts are infallible.
    Then there is no more to be said.
    Agreed, There is no point in any further discussion, and in fact there was no point in the past 12 pages either.
    Welcome, and come well again
    OK I am STILL WAITING ofr the NAMES of SPECIFIC mountains that fell from the sky............
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    How can you believe such a movie story when you are a science related man? How can you be sure this is the case and such alleged planet was never fully formed, and have sicne been caught in Jupiter's gravitational field!?
    The power of Wikipedia, my friend, is not to be underestimated. :wink:

    In fact, the opposite is true. Why then don't you show all this science and benefit the humanity with your atheism
    What would be the point? I'm not an atheist, as I pointed out; I believe in the existence of a "God" but not in an actual religion. My example was merely meant to show that everything in the Quran cannot be considered true.

    Is this according to some acquainted sources as they say in Journalism.
    No. The Church prescribed to Aristotelian ideas, most of which were disproved, for example.

    Why then have Venus and Mercury moved in this abnormal way: i.e. they do not spin around themselves?
    Does the Quran predict this? Because I see no other reason to bring this up. Venus does rotate for your information; once every 243 days. Mercury rotates every 176 days.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  84. #184  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    [And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?

    "A press release announcing the forthcoming time warp points out that this is the 24th leap second added since 1972, the previous one having been added at the end of 2005."
    There have been approximately 13,140 days since 1972. Therefore the day has lengthened by 24/13140 seconds over that time period:0.001826 seconds.

    Do you see why some of use might question your grasp of the scientific?
     

  85. #185  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    [And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?

    "A press release announcing the forthcoming time warp points out that this is the 24th leap second added since 1972, the previous one having been added at the end of 2005."
    There have been approximately 13,140 days since 1972. Therefore the day has lengthened by 24/13140 seconds over that time period:0.001826 seconds.

    Do you see why some of use might question your grasp of the scientific?
    Anyhow, will your grasp of the scientific not tell you the day is gradually getting longer?
     

  86. #186  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    What would be the point? I'm not an atheist, as I pointed out; I believe in the existence of a "God" but not in an actual religion.

    Will man teach God, or will God teach man the religion?

    Will man invent some sort of religion and order God to accept it, or is the opposite true?

    The religion means the obedience: so will man obey God's commandment, or will God obey man's instructions?

    Some of men invent a sort of religion, and try to impose it on God: that this is the religion as should be.

    Jesus Christ pointed out to this in the Gospel according to Mat. 15: 9
    "But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines: the commandments of men."

    And God said in the Quran 49: 16
    قُلْ أَتُعَلِّمُونَ اللَّهَ بِدِينِكُمْ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
    The explanation:
    (Say: 'What, would you teach God what your religion [or your obedience] is,
    and God knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth?
    And God is All-Knowing about everything.')
     

  87. #187  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Why then have Venus and Mercury moved in this abnormal way: i.e. they do not spin around themselves?
    Mercury and Venus both spin.

    And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?
    That is absolutely wrong. Adding "leap seconds" onto a year has to do with earth rotating around the sun, NOT the earth spinning on its axis.

    Anyhow, will your grasp of the scientific not tell you the day is gradually getting longer?
    The earth's constant gravitational struggle with the moon is why.
     

  88. #188  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir

    Will man teach God, or will God teach man the religion?
    Men will teach men, gods don't exist.

    Will man invent some sort of religion...?
    Man created Islam.

    The religion means the obedience: so will man obey God's commandment, or will God obey man's instructions?
    Myths and superstitions are not instructions or commandments, they are myths and superstitions.

    And God is All-Knowing about everything.
    If your reasoning in this thread comes from your god, then your god is wrong.
     

  89. #189  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 11: 18
    وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللّهِ كَذِبًا أُوْلَئِكَ يُعْرَضُونَ عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ وَيَقُولُ الأَشْهَادُ هَؤُلاء الَّذِينَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ أَلاَ لَعْنَةُ اللّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And who can do a greater wrong than one that forges a lie against God [when he attributes a son or daughters to God, or claims that idols are intercessors with God]?

    These [forgers of lies] will be presented before their Lord [to be rebuked and punished, on the Judgment Day],

    and the witnesses [: the recording angels will give witness against them, and] will say:
    "It is these who forged lies against their Lord; may God's curse be on wrong-doers [who wronged themselves and their followers!]")
     

  90. #190  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 11: 18
    وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّنِ افْتَرَى عَلَى اللّهِ كَذِبًا أُوْلَئِكَ يُعْرَضُونَ عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ وَيَقُولُ الأَشْهَادُ هَؤُلاء الَّذِينَ كَذَبُواْ عَلَى رَبِّهِمْ أَلاَ لَعْنَةُ اللّهِ عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And who can do a greater wrong than one that forges a lie against God [when he attributes a son or daughters to God, or claims that idols are intercessors with God]?

    These [forgers of lies] will be presented before their Lord [to be rebuked and punished, on the Judgment Day],

    and the witnesses [: the recording angels will give witness against them, and] will say:
    "It is these who forged lies against their Lord; may God's curse be on wrong-doers [who wronged themselves and their followers!]")
    Ah yes, the last bastion of a cowardly propagandist who can only spout brimstone and hellfire towards their critics when all else fails.

    You are one pathetic human being, eanassir.
     

  91. #191  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The Quran is a scientific book; because it is the word of God, the All-Knowing Who created the universe and is the same One That revealed the heavenly books including the Quran which is the last revealed book; therefore God knows best about His creation and about His revealed Quran, as in the Quran 25: 6
    قُلْ أَنزَلَهُ الَّذِي يَعْلَمُ السِّرَّ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا
    The explanation:
    (Say [O Mohammed, to them]: "[It is God], That revealed [the Quran], Who knows the secret [that is] in the heavens and the earth; for surely He is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.)

    No, this is merely a religious book.





    The seven heavens:
    While about the heavens: they are seven in many ayat of the Quran, like the aya 2: 29
    هُوَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ لَكُم مَّا فِي الأَرْضِ جَمِيعاً ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَاء فَسَوَّاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ وَهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
    The explanation:
    (It is He [: God] Who has created for you all that is in the earth, then aimed at [building] the sky and fashioned them as seven heavens, and He is the Omniscient about every thing.)

    Here, the aya speaks about the seven gaseous layers of the atmosphere that are above the region of the cloud, i.e. above the troposphere.
    And there are many ayat with the same implication.
    How many times will I repeat that there are not seven gaseous layers above the troposphere and there are not "troposphere then the "gaseous layers"", because all the atmosphere is gaseous layers (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere thermosphere, ect...).




    And like His saying – be glorified – in the Quran 23: 86
    قُلْ مَن رَّبُّ السَّمَاوَاتِ السَّبْعِ وَرَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ
    The explanation:
    (Say: "Who is the Lord of the seven heavens, and the Lord of the Throne [of Glory] Supreme?")

    So, this aya speaks about the ethereal spiritual heavens.
    And there are many ayat with the same implication.
    Just because "7 heavens" is mentionned alone in this verse.
    This argument is nonsense because, the fact that this word is here mentionned alone is meaningless. It's as if I say that Allah mentions here only the 7 heavens because there are, to Him, better than the earth; or that when the Qur'an mention in some verses "the earth" alone, it means the ethereal Earth (=Hell).

    That's not rigorous, I'm afraid.


    The different implications of the word "sky or heaven" and "heavens" as mentioned in the Quran:

    In Arabic: it indicates anything above you: the ceiling is the sky of the room.


    In singular it means the space.
    So, "Al Sama" means, according to you, the space? So does the rain come from space or the "visible sky"?



    In plural it gives one of the three meanings:
    1- The gaseous layers of the atmosphere of the planet.
    2- The ancient ethereal spiritual heavens (or the kingdom of heavens as mentioned in the Gospel.)
    3- The planets and the earth.
    I debunked all of them.




    It will not be transformed, and the Quran is preserved without any alteration or changing. We say the Quran aya in Arabic as it is, then we give its explanation in English or in any other language.

    However, you and many others give the translation of the meaning of the Quranic ayat, without giving the text of the Quran with it, when this is wrong; because the English reader may imagine that your translation is the Quran, when the translation is only the translation of the meaning of the Quran, whereas the Quran is only in Arabic.

    Therefore, the Quranic aya must be mentioned in Arabic, accompanied with its explanation in English or other languages.

    Well, your interpreter, in his interpretation, changed drastically the meaning of a word (which "a rock"). How does he know that it means here "the Moon"? Is it magic?



    If this was true, then he would not have given many things contrary to many theories, and many men (relating themselves to science like you) would have objected to many things he said.
    Other people and I have objected many things that he said.





    If he was concordist or posteriori as have you claimed, then he would have given all his words in concordance with the prevalent theories of Astronomy, Geology and Science.
    As soon as he givess a more or less vague verse a meaning depending on modern scientific knowledge or theories, he can be considered as a concordist. And this is what he does. Therefore you interpreter DOES be nothing but a concordist.







    Moreover, the late interpreter of the Quran and the Bible said: there are people created on the planets, when this has not been proved yet.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/#The...Are_Inhabited_

    Nowdays, the existence of ETs is considered as 'probable' thanks to the vastness of the Universe; contrary to before. So, if your intepreter ignored about ETs, he wouldn't make this intepretation. So, still a posteriori.





    [The existence, on the planets, of intelligent beings: humans and demons (or genies) ]

    (1) The indication of that is His saying – be exalted – in the Quran 30: 26

    وَلَهُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ كُلٌّ لَّهُ قَانِتُونَ

    The explanation: (To Him belongs [as a slave] whosoever is in the heavens and the earth. All are devoutly obedient* to Him.)

    [*Exactly, it means they are inclined towards God only, and avoiding those other than Him.]



    (2) God –be exalted –said also in the Quran 13: 15

    وَلِلّهِ يَسْجُدُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ طَوْعًا وَكَرْهًا وَظِلالُهُم بِالْغُدُوِّ وَالآصَالِ

    The explanation: (All those who are in the heavens and the earth prostrate themselves to God –willingly or loath; so do their shadows [give witness to their prostration], day and night.)

    Which prostate to Allah in the earth and the heavens are in this verse:

    Al-Hajj - 22.18. Don't you see that everything on the earth and in the heavens prostate to Allah, and the Sun, the moon, the stars, mountains, trees, animals and most of men?


    The existence, on the planets, of intelligent beings: humans and demons (or genies)?

    First, how do you know that heavens mean planets?
    Do the Sun, the stars and Moon are in planets?



    Therefore, when the Quran said that what is in heavens prostate to Him, it doesn't necessarly mean ETs.


    Moreover, God –be exalted –said in the Quran 27: 25

    أَلَّا يَسْجُدُوا لِلَّهِ الَّذِي يُخْرِجُ الْخَبْءَ فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا تُخْفُونَ وَمَا تُعْلِنُونَ؟

    The explanation: (Will they not adore [and obey] God Who brings forth what [plant] is hidden [under the soil] in the heavens and the earth, and knows what [secrets] you hide and what you proclaim ?)

    The ‘hidden’ means the plant because the seed is hidden under the ground, then it will come out as a plant.

    What is hidden in the earth could indeed mean plants and what is hidden in the heavens could be merely the rain. So, if this verse mentionned the vegetation on planets, it would be more precise.






    The explanation: (And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and what He has spread abroad therein of beasts [: moving creatures], and He is All-Able to gather them if He wills.)

    let's not forget that moving creatures in "heavens" aren't necessarily ET; they could be rather birds. Ohterwise, that wouldn't be a "sign" (as this verse claims).




    THUS: we can't safely conclude that the Qur'an does talk about ETs.








    In the same way, this man did not study the science and language grammar, then how could he bring the contradiction and correction of many theories in Astronomy, Geology and other disciplines of science, in spite of that he did not graduate at the primary school even, unless he was inspired by God ?

    From a scientific veiwpoint, I won't care if your interpreter's scientific theories were inspired by Allah or not. Here, your reasoning is fallacious.

    Tell any scientists all the so-called mistakes of astronomers we can found in your interpreter's works. they wouldn't analyze them, instead, they would laugh at you.
    They wouldn't laugh at his thesises but at his crap arguments for they are ludicrous.

    Indeed, if your interpreter were really inspired, then this would imply that Allah has wrong ideas on mountains, celestal mechanics, and tides.



    The words in the aya are the words of God word by word and letter by letter; He told about what Luqman [: Tobias] said advising his son. Luqman did not speak Arabic, while the Quran is the word of God revealed in Arabic.
    So what? the Qur'an doesn't twist Luqman's statement (contrary to what your interpreter does with some verses :-D ) but repeat what he said to his son, so the alleged miracle of the knowledge on Moon's rocky surface should be attributed to Luqman only.



    OK I am STILL WAITING ofr the NAMES of SPECIFIC mountains that fell from the sky............

    Me too. :-D
    These fallen mountains are probably invisible. And enassir will tell us that geologists have already seen them thanks to UV rays.

    If I were enassir, I'd throw fallen mountains theory in the garbage. Indeed, there are no evidences for it, and geologsits have found things contradicting him.
     

  92. #192  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    [And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?

    "A press release announcing the forthcoming time warp points out that this is the 24th leap second added since 1972, the previous one having been added at the end of 2005."
    There have been approximately 13,140 days since 1972. Therefore the day has lengthened by 24/13140 seconds over that time period:0.001826 seconds.
    Actually it is less than that. The 24 hrs to one mean solar day standard was set back in the 1800's when that was actually how long it took for the Earth to rotate. Since then, the Earth has slowed down slightly, but the thing to keep in mind is that the drift between the Earth's rotation and the 24 hr clock is accumulative. For example, let's assume that the Earth has slowed by 1 millisecond per day since then. That means that from this point on, every day the Earth's rotation falls 1 millisecond behind the standard clock. after 2 days it will be 2 milliseconds behind, and after 1000 days, 1 sec behind etc. So every 1000 days you will have to add a leap second to get them back in sync and you would have to keep doing this even if the Earth's rotation didn't slow down any more.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
     

  93. #193  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    [And why the earth has slowed down in its spinning so that the day recently became one second longer since 2005 till now (and 24 seconds since 1972)?

    "A press release announcing the forthcoming time warp points out that this is the 24th leap second added since 1972, the previous one having been added at the end of 2005."
    There have been approximately 13,140 days since 1972. Therefore the day has lengthened by 24/13140 seconds over that time period:0.001826 seconds.
    Actually it is less than that. The 24 hrs to one mean solar day standard was set back in the 1800's when that was actually how long it took for the Earth to rotate. Since then, the Earth has slowed down slightly, but the thing to keep in mind is that the drift between the Earth's rotation and the 24 hr clock is accumulative. For example, let's assume that the Earth has slowed by 1 millisecond per day since then. That means that from this point on, every day the Earth's rotation falls 1 millisecond behind the standard clock. after 2 days it will be 2 milliseconds behind, and after 1000 days, 1 sec behind etc. So every 1000 days you will have to add a leap second to get them back in sync and you would have to keep doing this even if the Earth's rotation didn't slow down any more.
    Excellent explanation.
    Therefore, the earth is slowing down, although very little. The expected thing that such slowing may increase later on; i.e. the rate of such slowing will be greater as time passes by; ...until it stops its spinning although it will continue circling around the sun.
     

  94. #194  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    Therefore, the earth is slowing down, although very little. The expected thing that such slowing may increase later on; i.e. the rate of such slowing will be greater as time passes by; ...until it stops its spinning although it will continue circling around the sun.
    The expected thing is for the rate of slowing to decrease with time. This due to the nature of the cause of the slowing: tidal interaction with the Moon.

    As the Moon raises tides on the Earth it generates a torque that transfers angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon. This results in the Earth slowing its rotation and the the Moon climbing to a higher orbit (By a rate of 4cm per year.). Since the tidal torque is dependent on the distance between the Earth and Moon, and gets weaker with increased distance, it will decrease its effect as the Moon recedes. Once the Earth rotates with the same period as the Moon's orbit, this slowing will stop.

    However, the time scale before this happens is longer than the time the Sun will remain in the main sequence. IOW, the Sun will expand into a red giant and possibly engulf both the Earth and Moon before it can happen.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Liongold
    What would be the point? I'm not an atheist, as I pointed out; I believe in the existence of a "God" but not in an actual religion.

    Will man teach God, or will God teach man the religion?

    Will man invent some sort of religion and order God to accept it, or is the opposite true?

    The religion means the obedience: so will man obey God's commandment, or will God obey man's instructions?

    Some of men invent a sort of religion, and try to impose it on God: that this is the religion as should be.

    Jesus Christ pointed out to this in the Gospel according to Mat. 15: 9
    "But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines: the commandments of men."

    And God said in the Quran 49: 16
    قُلْ أَتُعَلِّمُونَ اللَّهَ بِدِينِكُمْ وَاللَّهُ يَعْلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَاللَّهُ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
    The explanation:
    (Say: 'What, would you teach God what your religion [or your obedience] is,
    and God knows what is in the heavens and what is in the earth?
    And God is All-Knowing about everything.')
    You make no sense whatsoever. Why do either God or man have to obey anything? Does any other man have to obey you? No.
    Religion is merely a way for people to find God in their hearts. You seem to believe that religion must exist, for otherwise all else is lost; I believe otherwise.

    Now, shall we get back to actual science or would you prefer to continue to discuss religion, when we are here to discuss your theory?
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  96. #196  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    The expected thing is for the rate of slowing to decrease with time. This due to the nature of the cause of the slowing: tidal interaction with the Moon.

    As the Moon raises tides on the Earth it generates a torque that transfers angular momentum from the Earth to the Moon. This results in the Earth slowing its rotation and the the Moon climbing to a higher orbit (By a rate of 4cm per year.). Since the tidal torque is dependent on the distance between the Earth and Moon, and gets weaker with increased distance, it will decrease its effect as the Moon recedes. Once the Earth rotates with the same period as the Moon's orbit, this slowing will stop.

    However, the time scale before this happens is longer than the time the Sun will remain in the main sequence. IOW, the Sun will expand into a red giant and possibly engulf both the Earth and Moon before it can happen.

    We have another explanation of this subject:

    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre; therefore, as long as this central heat of the Earth decrease, as much will the Earth slow down.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...f_the_Gravity_

    Moreover, the Moon getting away from the Earth: 4cm per year as have you said. This is not because of the torque, but also because the central heat of the Earth is gradually decreasing.

    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.

    When such central heat decreases, the effect of the Earth gravity on the Moon will decrease, leading to the loosening of the Moon somewhat from the bond of the Earth gravity, and it will get little by little away from the Earth, but it cannot escape the Earth gravity.

    For the same reason, Earth will go away from the sun, as long as the sun is losing its heat (which is the reason for the gravity of the sun).

    On the other hand, as long as the Earth is losing its central heat (by heat radiation and volcano eruption), the Earth will get nearer to the Sun; because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object; therefore the sun will exert more gravity effect on the Earth and the Earth will approach towards the Sun.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...aches_the_Sun_

    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.

    When the Earth will lose all its central heat it will stop spinning around itself.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_

    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre;
    Prove it.

    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.
    Which shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of simple Netonian dynamics. Mass is what causes gravity, not heat. If heat reduces, the moon will still stay fixed in its orbit, as mass is a constant, thanks to the law of conservation of mass.

    because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object
    Oh really? Prove it, scientifcally, quoting a scientifically accurate experiment or source (not the Quran!).

    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.
    Yet Pluto spins, and its surface is perenially icy. Pluto also has a moon.

    Energy is not the cause of gravity, unless you wish to refer to Einsteinian arguments. Mass is, and will always be, the most important indicator of gravity. Loss of heat does not mean loss of gravity.

    I would ask you to look very closely at where you got this information from.
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

  98. #198  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir


    We have another explanation of this subject:

    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre; therefore, as long as this central heat of the Earth decrease, as much will the Earth slow down.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...f_the_Gravity_
    Your holy book is completely wrong. Many objects in the universe spins on their axes and have no heat whatsoever.

    Moreover, the Moon getting away from the Earth: 4cm per year as have you said. This is not because of the torque, but also because the central heat of the Earth is gradually decreasing.

    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.

    When such central heat decreases, the effect of the Earth gravity on the Moon will decrease, leading to the loosening of the Moon somewhat from the bond of the Earth gravity, and it will get little by little away from the Earth, but it cannot escape the Earth gravity.

    For the same reason, Earth will go away from the sun, as long as the sun is losing its heat (which is the reason for the gravity of the sun).

    On the other hand, as long as the Earth is losing its central heat (by heat radiation and volcano eruption), the Earth will get nearer to the Sun; because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object; therefore the sun will exert more gravity effect on the Earth and the Earth will approach towards the Sun.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...aches_the_Sun_
    Your holy book is completely wrong. Heat has nothing to do with gravity.

    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.

    When the Earth will lose all its central heat it will stop spinning around itself.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_
    Your holy book is completely wrong. Many objects in the universe spin on their axes and have no heat whatsoever.

    The Quran is wrong.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    We have another explanation of this subject:

    The Earth slowing is because of the decreasing heat in the centre of the Earth; the energy that moves the Earth around its axis is derived from the heat in its centre; therefore, as long as this central heat of the Earth decrease, as much will the Earth slow down.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...f_the_Gravity_

    Moreover, the Moon getting away from the Earth: 4cm per year as have you said. This is not because of the torque, but also because the central heat of the Earth is gradually decreasing.

    This central heat is the reason for the gravity of the Earth, which gravitates the Moon and keep it in its orbit around the Earth.

    When such central heat decreases, the effect of the Earth gravity on the Moon will decrease, leading to the loosening of the Moon somewhat from the bond of the Earth gravity, and it will get little by little away from the Earth, but it cannot escape the Earth gravity.

    For the same reason, Earth will go away from the sun, as long as the sun is losing its heat (which is the reason for the gravity of the sun).

    On the other hand, as long as the Earth is losing its central heat (by heat radiation and volcano eruption), the Earth will get nearer to the Sun; because the gravity affects the cold object more than the hot object; therefore the sun will exert more gravity effect on the Earth and the Earth will approach towards the Sun.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...aches_the_Sun_

    The heat is the life sign of any object in the universe:
    any hot object is alive: it rotates around itself, and it attracts the nearby cold objects;
    while any cold object is dead: it does not rotate around itself, and it does not attract other objects.

    When the Earth will lose all its central heat it will stop spinning around itself.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._of_the_Earth_


    As I said, the Earth doesn't rotate due to heat, but due to initial impacts it recieved at its birth. In space, there isn't friction, thus our planet conserved the movement created by the impacts, which is an angular momentum.

    And your argument, in your website, is the "abscence" of heat inside the Moon:

    * Since there aren't tectonic activity on surface anymore, it's possible that Moon's internal thermal activity came to a 'halt'.

    *However, we know that the Moon does rotate around itself. The period of rotation is in resonance with the Moon's period of revolution. So, your theory is obviously contradicted by facts.

    Moreover, if Gravity of a celestial bodies were caused by its heat, we would find, in the formula of gravitational interaction, indications of temperature instead of those of mass.


    The Earth is indeed slowing down, and that's due to a lunar torque (indeed, without the Moon, a Day on our planet would last only 10 hours); nothing to do with Earth's internal heat.

    Another counter-example for your theory: Venus rotates around itself.................. very slowly, => its speed of rotation is about 6km/hour ONLY!
    And yet, that planet is the hottest in the Solar System and have an important internal thermal activity, which is visible on its surface (volcanoes).

    Really, 6km/hour for a hot body! Your theory is totally nonsense.
     

  100. #200  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    625
    Your holy book is completely wrong. Many objects in the universe spins on their axes and have no heat whatsoever.
    You said that twice...
    In control lies inordinate freedom; in freedom lies inordinate control.
     

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •