Notices
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 362

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

  1. #1 Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin

    The mountains are two kinds:
    • The newly formed: were formed from volcano eruptions, from earthquakes causing depression and elevation of the earth surface and from various other geological factors.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    • But most of the mountains fell down on Earth from the outer space in the ancient times, in the form of meteorites and portions of the destroyed old planets.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites

    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, carried life to the Earth and the other planets, in the form of seeds, branches of plants and decayed organic substances and remnants of bodies of animals and plants; because the previous planets were inhabited by man, animal and plant. Therefore, life came to the earth embedded in the mountains, that were parts of the destroyed planets.
    Hence, life started from mountains not from seas.

    Life is transmittable (or migrant) from one inhabited planet of the past solar system [that was destroyed in the past Doomsday], to another planet in the newly formed solar system.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    The settlement of the mountains on the Earth, in its early life, caused
    1. Its inclination of 23 degrees on its axis; to form the seasons.
    2. And made its movement more steady and regular (like the lead weights used in the car wheel balance) so that its movement is so steady that we do not feel it in spite of its quick movement around its axis.
    3. And carried life to it.
    4. And the mountains, after falling down, were firmly rooted, like the pegs of the tent [they had roots and bases under the surface of the ground.] This may have an advantage of fixing the crust of the Earth.

    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    What's with all the mythology in a science forum?


     

  4. #3 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

    • But most of the mountains fell down on Earth from the outer space in the ancient times, in the form of meteorites and portions of the destroyed old planets.


    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, carried life to the Earth and the other planets, in the form of seeds, branches of plants and decayed organic substances and remnants of bodies of animals and plants; because the previous planets were inhabited by man, animal and plant. Therefore, life came to the earth embedded in the mountains, that were parts of the destroyed planets.
    And pray tell, how did all those organisms survive the travel through space?

    And where did those organisms originate if not from a similar process we can theorize happening here on earth?
     

  5. #4  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Apart from what others have stated, why is it the evidence states otherwise??

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
     

  6. #5 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, ...
    In order to support your claim, how would you be able to distinguish between the two species of mountains using empirical measurements? What are the facts that back it up?
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What's with all the mythology in a science forum?
    It is not mythology; examine the idea and discuss it scientifically instead of taking some presumptive attitude.
     

  8. #7 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

    • But most of the mountains fell down on Earth from the outer space in the ancient times, in the form of meteorites and portions of the destroyed old planets.


    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, carried life to the Earth and the other planets, in the form of seeds, branches of plants and decayed organic substances and remnants of bodies of animals and plants; because the previous planets were inhabited by man, animal and plant. Therefore, life came to the earth embedded in the mountains, that were parts of the destroyed planets.
    And pray tell, how did all those organisms survive the travel through space?

    And where did those organisms originate if not from a similar process we can theorize happening here on earth?

    The past planets were inhabited with people, animal and plant; when the past planets had broken up, the resulting pieces and portions included the remnants of the decayed corpses of animals, plants and man-kind in addition to the microorganisms; all that embedded inside such pieces.
    These pieces fell on the newly formed planets: our earth and the rest of the planets of the present solar system. Then when circumastances became suitable and rain water came down; the seeds of the plants and other branches started to grow; and God - be glorified - created a large number of species from the decayed organic substances of the decayed corpses of animals and plants.
    The earth itself was sterilized by the extreme heat of its core and its surface. Then how could the germ of life come to it unless it is embedded in the meteorites and the remnants of the destroyed past planets?
    God created various species on those old planets as does He create on this Earth whatever He likes till now.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by sox
    Apart from what others have stated, why is it the evidence states otherwise?? :shock:
    Some newly formed mountains are evidently because of volcanoes and their ages can be determined obviously.

    Some moutains are very old in comparison to the surrounding regions where they are.
     

  10. #9 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, ...
    In order to support your claim, how would you be able to distinguish between the two species of mountains using empirical measurements? What are the facts that back it up?

    Some mountains are because of volcanoes -- this is evident; or because of earthqukes and other geological factors; this is obvious.
    But others isolated with no relation to any such factors; and some ranges appear very old: older than the surrounding regions.
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Show a single mountain that wasn't predictably caused by processes we believe now. There you have an opening for another explanation. Simple ignorance is not an opening.
     

  12. #11  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    we know what an impact with a meteorite looks like : they form impact craters with a rim and sometimes a central peak, which on earth become rapidly eroded and after a few million are not that easy to distinguish apart from aerial photographs - i'm not aware of any mountains, can you give any examples ?

    also, what do you mean by "past planets" ? where were they and how did they get broken up ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    we know what an impact with a meteorite looks like : they form impact craters with a rim and sometimes a central peak, which on earth become rapidly eroded and after a few million are not that easy to distinguish apart from aerial photographs - i'm not aware of any mountains, can you give any examples ?

    also, what do you mean by "past planets" ? where were they and how did they get broken up ?
    There had been some past planets that were destroyed and broken up; their remnants are the meteorites and celestial rocks that fall on earth and the other planets of our solar system till the present day.

    Some meteorites like the Murchison meteorie included many amino acids on them.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...son_Meteorite_

    Some of the portions of the destroyed planets were so large to form the mountains and mountainous ranges; the word "meteorite" may suggest it is a small piece; but by definition: any object or rock that reaches the earth from the outer space.

    This happened at the early phases of the earth development when it was still very hot and the crust is still not so thick and not so hard.

    There was another solar system, before this our solar system, then that past solar system was destroyed in the previous Doomsday.
    The previous sun broke up into nine pieces: the present planets of our solar system.
    The previous planets broke up into meteorites and portions that fell on the present planets to form the mountains.
    Life came to our earth embedded in the portions of the destroyed planets.

    The impact will depend on the impacting object whether it be a flaming comet or an inert cold rock of a meteorite.
    The flaming comet will melt the ground to bury inside the earth leaving a crater with almost a flat bottom.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_page_3.htm#Comets

    The meteorite will stay above the ground.
    [/quote]
     

  14. #13  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    if you're referring to the asteroid belt, then most of the bodies there never coalesced into a round shape with a differentiated interior - the ones that did either got smashed to pieces in collisions or are still around (like Ceres)

    if you're referring to the outer regions of the solar system then again very few coalesced into planet-like bodies (and even the exceptions like Pluto are no longer regarded as planets), most of them are just fragile icy bodies that when they enter the inner solar system as comets are in danger of disintegrating when most of their ice has evaporated

    none of them seem particularly good candidates for producing life (remember that amino acids have been found in interstellar clouds, and hence can be found in comets, but this still a few steps removed from life as we know it), and any "seeding" that i deem possible must be the enriching of the earth's oceans with organic precursors of life, which could have enhanced the chances of life originating

    [edit]
    sorry, hadn't seen the last bit of your post
    there's just no way that a sun could break up into nine pieces and become planets - there composition is just too different
    i think you have a misconception of how solar systems form
    [/edit]
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  15. #14 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    "It is not mythology"

    <snip>

    God created various species on those old planets as does He create on this Earth whatever He likes till now.
    Well, there you go.

    Please explain the physics of a mountain falling onto earth and creating a mountain rather than an impact crater.
     

  16. #15 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    It is not mythology"

    <snip>

    God created various species on those old planets as does He create on this Earth whatever He likes till now.
    Well, there you go.

    Please explain the mathematics of a mountain falling onto earth and creating a mountain rather than an impact crater.

    This was certainly a tremendous incident; because it led to the inclination of the Earth at 23 degrees axis, and the mountain falling led to the regulation of the earth movement around itself in spite of its quick speed of movement, we do not feel its moving smoothly. [refer to the original thread: where we likened that to the lead pieces used in the car wheel balance.]

    This falling of such huge portions happened in the early stages of the earth and the planets formation: the crust must not have been so thick and hard.

    Moreover, we don't know the direction of movement of both the earth on one side and the large mounainous pieces on the other hand; and we don't know the angle of landing of such mountains in that ancient times.

    However, the landing of the mountains on the earth took place heavily and the mountains were firmly fixed on earth with some root under the ground.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  17. #16 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    It is not mythology"

    <snip>

    God created various species on those old planets as does He create on this Earth whatever He likes till now.
    Well, there you go.

    Please explain the mathematics of a mountain falling onto earth and creating a mountain rather than an impact crater.

    This was certainly a tremendous incident; because it led to the inclination of the Earth at 23 degrees axis, and the mountain falling led to the regulation of the earth movement around itself in spite of its quick speed of movement, we do not feel its moving smoothly. [refer to the original thread: where we likened that to the lead pieces used in the car wheel balance.]

    This falling of such huge portions happened in the early stages of the earth and the planets formation: the crust must not have been so thick and hard.

    Moreover, we don't know the direction of movement of both the earth on one side and the large mounainous pieces on the other hand; and we don't know the angle of landing of such mountains in that ancient times.

    However, the landing of the mountains on the earth took place heavily and the mountains were firmly fixed on earth with some root under the ground.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    So, if I understand, your evidence that the earth was planted with extraterrestrial mountains lies in its tilt.

    Have the other planets also been seeded with extraterrestrial mountains, since they also tilt.

    I see that you have not explained with any physics whatsoever why the mountains did not form impact craters.

    While you are doing that, please also explaiin why stratigraphy of mountains is consistent with plate tectonics and not extraterrestrial impact. Also explain why stable isotope probing is consistent with tectonics rather than a heterogenous source. Finally, are we in danger of being bombarded by mountains anytime soon? It is quite a daunting thought after all!
     

  18. #17 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Have the other planets also been seeded with extraterrestrial mountains, since they also tilt.
    The same that happened to the earth, did happen to the rest of the planets; because the pieces of the past planets fell on the newly formed planets (: our planets.)

    In the same way, our earth and planets will become mountains on the future planets, after the next Doomsday, and in the same way life will reach the future planets from our earth and planets.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...he_New_Planets

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I see that you have not explained with any physics whatsoever why the mountains did not form impact craters.

    The mountains landed heavily on the surface of the earth, and became firmly fixed with some root under the ground level; this may be likened to the pegs of the tent; and it had the advantage of stabilizing the crust of the earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    While you are doing that, please also explaiin why stratigraphy of mountains is consistent with plate tectonics and not extraterrestrial impact. Also explain why stable isotope probing is consistent with tectonics rather than a heterogenous source.

    See the above.
    Moreover, this does not relate to all the mountains; some of the mountains are newly formed: from volcanoes, earthquakes, erosion and other geological factors.
    Most of the mountains came to the earth from the outer space, and served many advantages like the stabilizing and regulating the earth movement, in addition to carrying the germ of life in the form of seeds and branches of trees, and decayed corpses of animal and man.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Finally, are we in danger of being bombarded by mountains anytime soon? It is quite a daunting thought after all!
    This is a thing that happened in the past, when the past planets exploded and their broken up portions fell on the planets of our solar system.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...f_the_Planets_


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  19. #18 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Have the other planets also been seeded with extraterrestrial mountains, since they also tilt.
    The same that happened to the earth, did happen to the rest of the planets; because the pieces of the past planets fell on the newly formed planets (: our planets.)

    In the same way, our earth and planets will become mountains on the future planets, after the next Doomsday, and in the same way life will reach the future planets from our earth and planets.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...he_New_Planets

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I see that you have not explained with any physics whatsoever why the mountains did not form impact craters.

    The mountains landed heavily on the surface of the earth, and became firmly fixed with some root under the ground level; this may be likened to the pegs of the tent; and it had the advantage of stabilizing the crust of the earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    While you are doing that, please also explaiin why stratigraphy of mountains is consistent with plate tectonics and not extraterrestrial impact. Also explain why stable isotope probing is consistent with tectonics rather than a heterogenous source.

    See the above.
    Moreover, this does not relate to all the mountains; some of the mountains are newly formed: from volcanoes, earthquakes, erosion and other geological factors.

    But most of the mountains came to the earth from the outer space, and served many advantages like the stabilizing and regulating the earth movement, in addition to carrying the germ of life in the form of seeds and branches of trees, and decayed corpses of animal and man.

    In the Quran, God cast them on earth and they landed heavily and became fixed and served stabilizing and regulating the movement of the earth: lest it should sway away or move irregularly with people.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Finally, are we in danger of being bombarded by mountains anytime soon? It is quite a daunting thought after all!
    This is something happened in the past, when the past planets exploded and their broken up portions fell on the planets of our solar system.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...f_the_Planets_


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Do you know what stratigraphy is? A simple yes or no will suffice.
     

  21. #20
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Do you know what stratigraphy is? A simple yes or no will suffice.
    I may know a little bit about this stratigraphy and the layering of some areas on earth including mountains.

    But this may confirm and does not contradict that most (but not all) of mountains on earth and the planets had come in this way.
     

  22. #21 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    oh, i see : you're trying to match up the quran with a half-understood version of what happened in the early stages of the formation of the solar system

    it is true that after the initial coalescing of matter in the solar system there where several planet-size and subplanet-size bodies, not all of them in stable orbits

    various bodies show evidence of what these collision have caused, such as the retrograde rotation of Venus, Uranus tilted at 90° and clear evidence that the moon formed from the collision of the proto-earth with a Mars-sized body

    these collisions are so massive that instead of forming mountains they must have liquified most of the planet's interior + crust, so in effect levelled out any mountains that may have existed prior to the collision

    the effect of the subsequent massive bombardment with smaller meteorites and comets can still be clearly seen on the moon, in the form of impact craters, not mountains - there is no reason to believe that the earth would have behaved any different

    apart from that, the last bombardment virtually stopped about 3.5 billion years ago, and that's still an awful long time for erosion to do its work and level off any mountains that may have existed in the very early days

    so in summary, and whatever scenario you wish to apply, the conclusion remains that any mountains you see on earth are relatively young (i don't know of any substantial ones in excess of 400 million years) and could not have been formed by a bombardment by meteorites more than 3.5 billion years ago
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Good reasoning from Marnix.

    Another way, just look at it.

    If mountains dropped from space they'd be scattered randomly all over. But we see the mountains packed tightly together in great tight clusters we call mountain ranges.

    Here one can't make out individual mountains:


    Denver, Colorado. Rocky Mountains to the west.


    Viewed from surface.


    Do you see how mountains on Earth, together, express localized texture? What we have is distinct regions of mountainous terrain (numbingly repetitive, if you've ever driven through it), not individual rocks scattered haphazardly across the planet.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    We have a conflict here between the rational thinking of science and the irrational thinking of superstition. Science shows clearly that a mountain cannot fall from space and remain a mountain. The dinosaur killer that fell from space at the end of the Cretaceous was definitely mountain size, and more. However, it just left a crater.

    The energy in a mountain sized lump of rock moving at 11 kms per second relative to the Earth is enormous. More than ten thousand Hydrogen bombs. It is all released with impact. No mere mountain could stay together in one piece. Hence we get a massive meteorite impact crater and debris flung hundreds of kilometres.

    We have seen this on a small scale with meteroite impacts, and with man-made space debris falling. We have seen the results of larger impacts (Arizona crater, and Wolfe Creek crater). We can see the craters on the moon. We have seen impacts on Jupiter. We know what happens. And large objects - mountain size - explode like H bombs.
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    may i also add the fact that the K-T meteorite impact, lethal though it was, not only did not cause any mountains to form, but after 65 million years (a sliver compared with the billions of years of the last serious meteorite bombardment) there is not a single trace of it visible on the surface - it required drilling to take place to uncover the truth
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  26. #25 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    oh, i see : you're trying to match up the quran with a half-understood version of what happened in the early stages of the formation of the solar system

    it is true that after the initial coalescing of matter in the solar system there where several planet-size and subplanet-size bodies, not all of them in stable orbits

    various bodies show evidence of what these collision have caused, such as the retrograde rotation of Venus, Uranus tilted at 90° and clear evidence that the moon formed from the collision of the proto-earth with a Mars-sized body

    these collisions are so massive that instead of forming mountains they must have liquified most of the planet's interior + crust, so in effect levelled out any mountains that may have existed prior to the collision

    the effect of the subsequent massive bombardment with smaller meteorites and comets can still be clearly seen on the moon, in the form of impact craters, not mountains - there is no reason to believe that the earth would have behaved any different

    apart from that, the last bombardment virtually stopped about 3.5 billion years ago, and that's still an awful long time for erosion to do its work and level off any mountains that may have existed in the very early days

    so in summary, and whatever scenario you wish to apply, the conclusion remains that any mountains you see on earth are relatively young (i don't know of any substantial ones in excess of 400 million years) and could not have been formed by a bombardment by meteorites more than 3.5 billion years ago


    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.

    Yes it is true; it is in the Quran16: 15
    وَأَلْقَى فِي الأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ
    The explanation: (And He cast [mountains] that landed on the earth; lest it should irregularly move with you)

    Those ‘that landed’ are the mountains; which, actually, are some meteorites [: portions of the past broken up planets] that landed and settled on the Earth, i.e. they became fixed, firm and stationary upon it.

    And there are many other Quranic revelations where this has been asserted.

    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.

    Take some contemporary events, e.g. the election of the president: then ask 10 men about their explanation: they will give you 10 different opinions; while it is some recent event; then how about things that happened millions of years ago as do they say?

    I see the mountains as the portions of some destroyed planets, and these portions fell on Earth and the rest of planets more reasonable; and there are many things that confirm this.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  27. #26 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Anyhow; about the theories of the formation of the earth, the planets, moons and mountains: most of such theories are not convincing.
    Unlike the notion of mountains falling to earth from outer space, not creating impact craters, and somehow having identical stratigraphy to the surrounding nonmountainous layers. To name two pieces of evidence.

    Unless you can specify, rigorously, what it is about the current theories that is 'not convincing,' just saying that they are not convincing is ... hardly convincing.

    There are mountains of evidence for tectonics. Your outer space theory on the other hand is seriously cratered.
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Good reasoning from Marnix.

    Another way, just look at it.

    If mountains dropped from space they'd be scattered randomly all over. But we see the mountains packed tightly together in great tight clusters we call mountain ranges.

    Do you see how mountains on Earth, together, express localized texture? What we have is distinct regions of mountainous terrain (numbingly repetitive, if you've ever driven through it), not individual rocks scattered haphazardly across the planet.

    Have you seen the car-wheel balance: how does the worker do it?

    He will put the wheel of the car on a certain rotator, and then will notice where the awkwardness of movement is, and will put the lead weights in a way to balance it and make the movement of the wheel more regular.

    Here, the wheel resembles the earth, and the lead weights resemble the mountains.

    Certainly, the falling of those mountains on the Earth was a tremendous thing in the past: it must have had some special circumstances like:
    • The speed of both the earth and the falling pieces.
    • The direction of movement of either of the earth and such falling pieces. If both are moving in the same direction or nearly similar direction or were they moving in opposite directions: the severity of the impact will differ greatly.
    • The angle of the impact of such mountains. It should have been heavy but not necessarily very severe.
    • The crust of the earth:
    >> its elasticity or hardness: will it yield to some extent or is it rigid so that it will shutter.
    >> its degree of heat: was it flaming and very hot or was it cold and very rigid.
    >> was it thin or thick.

    To imagine this process that happened in the past in the early stages of the earth formation: we may liken it to somebody receiving some beats from a boxer:

    Whenever the boxer hits him, he will push his face to some extent: and by that exposing the other parts of the face to more blows and beats In this way the mountains might have fallen and this made the movement of the earth more regular.

    If we have some patience, we may see this in the Quran 13: 4 about the mountains: how they fell:
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation: (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    More explanation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other in the form of mountainous ranges after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites because they came to the earth from the space.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Science shows clearly that a mountain cannot fall from space and remain a mountain. The dinosaur killer that fell from space at the end of the Cretaceous was definitely mountain size, and more. However, it just left a crater.

    If a mountain now falls from the space, yes, I agree: the effects will be disastrous, but as I gave the probabilities above:

    "Certainly, the falling of those mountains on the Earth was a tremendous thing in the past: it must have had some special circumstances like:
    • The speed of both the earth and the falling pieces.
    • The direction of movement of either of the earth and such falling pieces. If both are moving in the same direction or nearly similar direction or were they moving in opposite directions: the severity of the impact will differ greatly.
    • The angle of the impact of such mountains. It should have been heavy but not necessarily very severe.
    • The crust of the earth:
    >> its elasticity or hardness: will it yield to some extent or is it rigid so that it will shutter.
    >> its degree of heat: was it flaming and very hot or was it cold and very rigid.
    >> was it thin or thick."

    Moreover, you have given some debatable thing about dinosaurs. It may be such dinosaurs lived on the past planets and then their fossils came embedded in the mountains which are the portions of the broken up planets; so why do they believe such strange theory of some blast that killed the dinosaurs, and do not believe the origin of mountains as bearers of the seed of life?


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The energy in a mountain sized lump of rock moving at 11 kms per second relative to the Earth is enormous. More than ten thousand Hydrogen bombs. It is all released with impact. No mere mountain could stay together in one piece. Hence we get a massive meteorite impact crater and debris flung hundreds of kilometres.

    I have answered this in the above lines in this reply; in addition: from where did you bring such figures? And I need not say more about these hydrogen bombs that are listed here.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    We have seen this on a small scale with meteroite impacts, and with man-made space debris falling. We have seen the results of larger impacts (Arizona crater, and Wolfe Creek crater). We can see the craters on the moon. We have seen impacts on Jupiter. We know what happens. And large objects - mountain size - explode like H bombs.
    The Arizona crater may not be due to a meteorite; it was almost due the falling of a comet in the past; see this here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...met_of_Arizona


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  30. #29 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Anyhow; about the theories of the formation of the earth, the planets, moons and mountains: most of such theories are not convincing.
    Unlike the notion of mountains falling to earth from outer space, not creating impact craters, and somehow having identical stratigraphy to the surrounding nonmountainous layers. To name two pieces of evidence.

    Unless you can specify, rigorously, what it is about the current theories that is 'not convincing,' just saying that they are not convincing is ... hardly convincing.

    There are mountains of evidence for tectonics. Your outer space theory on the other hand is seriously cratered.

    Moutains that fell on Earth in the past (and they are most of the mountains in fact), were great objects or portions; they are meteorites by definition, but they were so great (: portions of some destroyed planets); they made some depression of the layers below them and had some roots or underground bases according to their falling and their heavy weights and masses.

    I have to assert that other factors of tectonics and stratigraphy are correct observations that go along with such mountain settling on Earth following their casting from the space.

    And this does not contradict that certainly there are newly formed mountains: from various geological factors.

    This is in the Quran 35: 27
    أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ ثَمَرَاتٍ مُّخْتَلِفًا أَلْوَانُهَا وَمِنَ الْجِبَالِ جُدَدٌ بِيضٌ وَحُمْرٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهَا
    The explanation: (Do you [Mohammed] not see how God sends down [rain] water from the sky, and We bring forth therewith produce of various colors,--and of mountains [also He brings forth therewith,] newly-formed mountains: white and red, of various colors, --and black brands of coal.)

    The interpretation: With the aid of rain water, We made new mountains. That is because the rain will solve the carbon dioxide gas present in the air, so that carbonic acid will be formed, which will solve some parts of the calcium-containing rocks present in the mountains, so it will go down to the low lands and seas, and will once again petrify, and as such will the process go on with the passing of time, until a new mountain will result.

    However, many theories relating to the formation of Earth, Moon and the mountains may not be correct.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...f_the_Planets_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...rigin_of_Earth
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com


     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The laws of physics do not change. They were the same millions of years ago as they are now. And the energy of a moving object is shown by the equation
    E = 0.5 mv2

    A falling mountain has an energy of its speed relative to the Earth ( which has been moving at 11 km per second for billions of years) squared, times half its mass. When I said the energy of tens of thousands of hydrogen bombs, I meant it. The energy output is easily calculable by this equation, and the result has been demonstrated by observation of space debris hitting the Earth. This debris has exactly known mass, and exactly known speed, and the impact can be and is measured exactly. The equation above is shown to be correct.

    No mountain can fall to the Earth and remain intact. It cannot happen, and it never has happened, even though objects of that size, and larger, have hit the Earth on a number of occasions. All they leave is impact craters, and debris thrown over thousands of kilometres.

    The mountains of Earth are the result of orogenic processes, which continue to this day. For example : the Himalayas arose from two tectonic plates moving together over a period of millions of years, and the movement is being tracked as we speak using GPS technology, showing the movement continuing right now.

    In my own country, the Southern Alps are the result of two masses of rock on either side of a fault line moving against each other, raising the mountain range. A technique as simple as putting two pegs in the ground, and linking them with a length of twine, shows a movement against each other of about one centimetre per year. I have been on site and seen the distortion in a wire fence due to this movement. This causes mountains to rise. Falling from the sky is mere fantasy.
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The laws of physics do not change. They were the same millions of years ago as they are now.
    No objection; it is the law of God inserted in His universe.
    I say: no objection: the laws of physics do not change; but the circumstances and conditions change and the application will be different; refer to the above reply.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    ...its speed relative to the Earth ( which has been moving at 11 km per second for billions of years) ...

    The speed of the earth movement around itself, as around the sun, will certainly change by time: the earth in the past was spinning more quickly than it is now, and it is getting slower by time.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...Around_Itself_


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The mountains of Earth are the result of orogenic processes, which continue to this day. For example : the Himalayas arose from two tectonic plates moving together over a period of millions of years, and the movement is being tracked as we speak using GPS technology, showing the movement continuing right now.

    In my own country, the Southern Alps are the result of two masses of rock on either side of a fault line moving against each other, raising the mountain range. A technique as simple as putting two pegs in the ground, and linking them with a length of twine, shows a movement against each other of about one centimetre per year. I have been on site and seen the distortion in a wire fence due to this movement. This causes mountains to rise. Falling from the sky is mere fantasy.
    No objection to the orogenic processes in forming the new mountains; but not all the mountains; most of the mountains are the old mountains: the portions of the destroyed planets coming from the space and settling on the surface of the earth in the past:

    Now it appears that most of the big pieces of such destroyed planets had settled on the earth and the rest of the planets in the form of the mountains and mountainous ranges.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    Only the small pieces have remained which fall as meteorites every now and then on Earth and the other planets.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...htm#Meteorites


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Have you seen the car-wheel balance: how does the worker do it?
    If you're suggesting the mountains were placed carefully, by a certain Hand, I won't argue with that. You could explain anything with an invisible hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    To imagine this process that happened in the past in the early stages of the earth formation: we may liken it to somebody receiving some beats from a boxer:

    Whenever the boxer hits him, he will push his face to some extent: and by that exposing the other parts of the face to more blows and beats In this way the mountains might have fallen and this made the movement of the earth more regular.
    Well, no, a mountain seems enormous to us standing under it, but even Everest is tiny. It's not even a grain of rice on a watermelon.

    Everest is the one at center:


    I think the scale of mountains in your imagination is way off reality. The mountains from afar (orbit) don't look like mighty individual rocks. They look like part of wrinkly texture, confined to some regions. I can't see how meteors raining down from space would just happen to pack together like that. Why can you go from Lebanon to Iran without seeing a single mountain, then suddenly a wall of mountains? Why are they all beside each other, not some landed on top?
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    If you're suggesting the mountains were placed carefully, by a certain Hand, I won't argue with that. You could explain anything with an invisible hand.
    Anyhow the result will be the steady movement of the earth. Certainly the mountains have an important role in making this earth movement so regular; in addition to their important role in fixing the crust of the earth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I can't see how meteors raining down from space would just happen to pack together like that.

    Not the meteor per say; but portions of the destroyed planets which are included under the definition of "meteorites".
    The meteors are the shooting stars.
    The meteorites are the celestial rocks reaching the surface of the earth

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Why can you go from Lebanon to Iran without seeing a single mountain, then suddenly a wall of mountains? Why are they all beside each other, not some landed on top?
    The mountains of Earth are four kinds:
    1. Some of them were formed because of the volcanoes;
    2. Others due to the wearing away and erosion, and due to earthquakes and land depressions;
    3. Others because of land contraction and breaking of its surface: those latter are the Elongated Chained Mountains [i.e. the long mountain ranges.]
    4. But most of the mountains are due to falling of meteorites upon the Earth; the meteorites are still falling now and then in some countries, till the present time.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    Such falling of the portions of the destroyed past planets is not like a shower of small stones or meteors.

    If we imagine a planet broke up into 1000 pieces then some of such pieces landed on Earth, then we may imagine the subject; and here, Pong, I leave this subject in the hands of Geoloists, according to my next reply.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    If you're suggesting the mountains were placed carefully, by a certain Hand, I won't argue with that. You could explain anything with an invisible hand.

    Now, they have moved my posting to the pseudoscience [because of their fanatic attitude]; I apologize I cannot continue discussing this subject.

    So let them float on their true science, and let me dive in my pseudo science.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Eanassir, you've quoted my questions but you didn't answer them.

    Do you see how closely packed the mountains in above photo are? How is it that not one mountain ever landed atop another?
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    Have you seen the car-wheel balance: how does the worker do it?

    He will put the wheel of the car on a certain rotator, and then will notice where the awkwardness of movement is, and will put the lead weights in a way to balance it and make the movement of the wheel more regular.

    Here, the wheel resembles the earth, and the lead weights resemble the mountains.

    Certainly, the falling of those mountains on the Earth was a tremendous thing in the past: it must have had some special circumstances like:
    • The speed of both the earth and the falling pieces.
    • The direction of movement of either of the earth and such falling pieces. If both are moving in the same direction or nearly similar direction or were they moving in opposite directions: the severity of the impact will differ greatly.
    • The angle of the impact of such mountains. It should have been heavy but not necessarily very severe.
    • The crust of the earth:
    >> its elasticity or hardness: will it yield to some extent or is it rigid so that it will shutter.
    >> its degree of heat: was it flaming and very hot or was it cold and very rigid.
    >> was it thin or thick.

    To imagine this process that happened in the past in the early stages of the earth formation: we may liken it to somebody receiving some beats from a boxer:

    Whenever the boxer hits him, he will push his face to some extent: and by that exposing the other parts of the face to more blows and beats Smile In this way the mountains might have fallen and this made the movement of the earth more regular.

    If we have some patience, we may see this in the Quran 13: 4 about the mountains: how they fell:
    وَفِي الأَرْضِ قِطَعٌ مُّتَجَاوِرَاتٌ وَجَنَّاتٌ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ
    The explanation: (There are, in the earth, pieces adjacent to each other, and gardens of vines )

    More explanation:
    >> (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    >> (adjacent to each other) means: they neighbored each other in the form of mountainous ranges after being dispersed in the space. Those pieces were the meteorites because they came to the earth from the space.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

    First, the very old "mountains" which are allegedly formed by meteorite collision aren't almost present anymore due to erosion. The Quranic verses you quoted deal with the mountains which are there NOW, hence it's said that mountains are placed on the earth lest it should shake with YOU.

    And it says "Have We not made mountains as pegs"

    Again, those 'fallen mountains' aren't there anymore, so, it doesn't make sense to compare them to stabilizing pegs.


    And He hath cast into the earth firm hills that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way. (16:15)

    From this verse, we understand that thanks to the presence of flowing streams and roads, one can find one's way. So, in this context, it's the PRESENCE of mountains that stabilize the earth, not their creation themselves.




    Moreover, you provide not a single evidences in favour that those mountains stabilize the Earth.


    Here, a person asked if mountains are like wheel weights:
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy...h-rotation.htm

    Obviously, your analogy is bogus and indeed pseudo-scientific.
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    First, the very old "mountains" which are allegedly formed by meteorite collision aren't almost present anymore due to erosion.
    The erosion has its effect, but this does not mean that all the old mountains have been eroded.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The Quranic verses you quoted deal with the mountains which are there NOW, hence it's said that mountains are placed on the earth lest it should shake with YOU.
    It means: the mountains had been cast on the earth in the past, and they are still present; because the mountains were cast on the earth after the elapsing of 2000 years, but during the following 4000 years of the transformation of that sun into an earth with a cold crust.

    This is in the Quran41: 9-12
    قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَتَجْعَلُونَ لَهُ أَندَادًا ذَلِكَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ . وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَارَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا فِي أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ سَوَاء لِّلسَّائِلِينَ .
    The explanation: ( [O Mohammed] say [to the idolaters]: “Do you, then, disbelieve in [God] Who created the earth in two days, and do you ascribe to Him opponents? –That is the Lord of [all] the worlds!”
    “And He made [mountains] that landed upon it, blessed it, and apportioned therein its sustenance in four days; alike for those who ask [provision.]” )

    The interpretation:
    One of the days of God equals one thousand of our years, according to our days.
    So "in 2 days" means in 2000 years, and "in 4 days" means in 4000 years, and the total will be "6 days" which equalls 6000 years, which is the period required by that sun to transform into an earth with a cold crust.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    And it says "Have We not made mountains as pegs"

    Again, those 'fallen mountains' aren't there anymore, so, it doesn't make sense to compare them to stabilizing pegs.
    It is not necessarily that all such old mountains have been eroded.


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    And He hath cast into the earth firm hills that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way. (16:15)
    From this verse, we understand that thanks to the presence of flowing streams and roads, one can find one's way. So, in this context, it's the PRESENCE of mountains that stabilize the earth, not their creation themselves.
    [/quote]


    If you go to a desert without any landmark, you may not find your way; while the existence of some landmarks will make one recognize his way.

    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Here, a person asked if mountains are like wheel weights:
    http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy...h-rotation.htm
    You will not discuss the matter with this professor, and will you take his words blindly?
    Will you compare the regular movement of the earth sphere with the wobbling movement of some asteroids that have irregular shape, and see how their movement is awkward or woblle
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The erosion has its effect, but this does not mean that all the old mountains have been eroded.
    If those many mountains from asteroid collision are still there, well just put their names.



    You will not discuss the matter with this professor, and will you take his words blindly?
    Why? Will I believe you blindly rather? Are you more credible that this professor?
    Contrary to you, she give a lot of evidences of her thesis.

    Will you compare the regular movement of the earth sphere with the wobbling movement of some asteroids that have irregular shape, and see how their movement is awkward or woblle

    Wrong! The movement of the Earth isn't regular! Indeed, our planet wobbles as well. One calls that precession (over a period of about 20 000 years, I think)
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    If those many mountains from asteroid collision are still there, well just put their names.
    I didn't say "from asteroid collision", but from the falling, on Earth, of some portions of the destroyed and broken up planets [by definition: such falling portions are called the meteorites]

    New mountains may form on Earth due to various geological factors: like volcanoes, depressions and cleaves and rising of some parts of the earth crust ...etc; and such new mountains are mentioned in the Quran35: 27
    أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ ثَمَرَاتٍ مُّخْتَلِفًا أَلْوَانُهَا وَمِنَ الْجِبَالِ جُدَدٌ بِيضٌ وَحُمْرٌ مُّخْتَلِفٌ أَلْوَانُهَا وَغَرَابِيبُ سُودٌ
    The explanation:
    (Do you [Mohammed] not see how God sends down [rain] water from the sky, and We bring forth therewith produce of various colors,--and of mountains[, also He brings forth therewith,] newly-formed mountains: white and red, of various colors, --and black brands of coal.)

    The interpretation:
    By means of the rain water, We made new mountains. That is because the rain will solve the carbon dioxide gas present in the air, so that carbonic acid will be formed, which will solve some parts of the calcium-containing rocks present in the mountains, so it will go down to the low lands and seas, and will once again petrify, and as such will the process go on with the passing of time, until a new mountain will result.

    >> (and black brands of coal.) means: By means of the rain water, We formed black brands of coal. He means: the brands of coal; for it petrifies by means of the carbonic acid formed by the rain water. Actually, God – be exalted – said غَرابِيبُ i.e. (coals) or (brands of coal) in plural; because the brands of coal are four kinds.

    While about the names of the old mountains that had been fallen on Earth in the early phases of its development; I don't know, but they are most of the mountains on Earth, other than the newly formed mountains due to various geological factors.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    Why? Will I believe you blindly rather? Are you more credible that this professor? Contrary to you, she give a lot of evidences of her thesis.
    No one has to believe anyone blindly; and concerning this scientist, I wrote to her many times before; although I noticed her saying: ask me anything about Astronomy!

    The movement of the Earth isn't regular! Indeed, our planet wobbles as well. One calls that precession (over a period of about 20 000 years, I think)
    I mean: the earth moves so regularly and smoothly; to the extent that we move and go here and there and we do not feel it moving, in spite of its fast rotation; while if it wobbles like some irregularly-shaped asteroids, then its rotation will certainly be irregular, when life will be difficult.


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com



     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    While about the names of the old mountains that had been fallen on Earth in the early phases of its development; I don't know, but they are most of the mountains on Earth, other than the newly formed mountains due to various geological factors.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    That's not logical: you think that their are a lot of mountains fallen on the earth, but you don't even know their names? Well, say where we can find them, pls.


    Again, if those old mountains, were still there, erosion wouldn't exist! Even mountains formed (through tectonic process) after the early era of our planet aren't there anymore...

    Here is the list of mountains type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_types<br />

    Where can you see mountains fallen on the Earth or something like that?



    No one has to believe anyone blindly; and concerning this scientist, I wrote to her many times before; although I noticed her saying: ask me anything about Astronomy!

    Fortunaltely, no one has to believe anyone blindly, indeed.
    But this scientist, who is a professor in a college, put credible arguments. She didn't say only No, mountains don't behave as wheel weights!; if she did so, then it would be indeed a matter of blind belief. But she clearly explained her thesis with credible arguments. However, certain Mulsims just state that mountains are as wheel weight for the Earth without explainig why and bringing scientific evidences.
    So, one could even refute their baseless 'theory' without bringing proofs either.


    If mountains really function as whell weights, then they must be much denser than the crust and prevent Earth's precession.


    the mountains are still falling now and then in some countries, till the present time

    Well, if those mountains are this falling now, then we have not atmosphere to protect us! Those collision are of course rare. Again, a collision with meteorite creates craters not mountains, otherwise you would see a mountain at Arizona Crater.



    I mean: the earth moves so regularly and smoothly; to the extent that we move and go here and there and we do not feel it moving, in spite of its fast rotation; while if it wobbles like some irregularly-shaped asteroids, then its rotation will certainly be irregular, when life will be difficult.
    probably because the earth is spherical, but that don't prove that it's thanks to mountains. Today, scientists think that it's the Moon that stabilize the Earth:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth




    Anyhow the result will be the steady movement of the earth. Certainly the mountains have an important role in making this earth movement so regular; in addition to their important role in fixing the crust of the earth.

    And certainly, you didn't even explain WHY they have an important role in fixing the crust of the earth. You said fixing? Sorry, but the crust constantly drifts, it's not fixed!



    The Arizona crater may not be due to a meteorite; it was almost due the falling of a comet in the past; see this here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...met_of_Arizona

    yeah, of course! And I can say that it's due to an elephant!
    The Arizona Crater is about 20,000 yrs ago, it's due to a METEORIE, not a COMET!
    this meteorite is called Canyon Diablo meteorite.

    Here is a 'sample' of it:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Meteorite.jpg


    That comet was a mass of iron and nickel
    nope! Contrary to asteroids, comets are mainly made of dust and hydrogen, methan, water



    The interpretation:
    One of the days of God equals one thousand of our years, according to our days.
    So "in 2 days" means in 2000 years, and "in 4 days" means in 4000 years, and the total will be "6 days" which equalls 6000 years, which is the period required by that sun to transform into an earth with a cold crust.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth

    No, 6 Days is rather the period of the total Creation of the Heavens and the Earth and which is between them both (that's to say the creation of the Universe).
    Obviously, according to the Quran, the Universe was created in 6,000 years only.
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    While about the names of the old mountains that had been fallen on Earth in the early phases of its development; I don't know, but they are most of the mountains on Earth, other than the newly formed mountains due to various geological factors.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    Ah! Most of the mountains on the earth, hum?
    Here is the list of mountains type: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_types<br />

    Where can you see mountains fallen on the Earth or something like that?

    Of course they do not say mountains fallen on the Earth; because they are not aware of such an idea.

    But she clearly explained her thesis with credible arguments. However, certain Mulsim just state that mountains are as wheel weight for the Earth without explainig why and bringing scientific evidences.
    The truth is that you desire to believe her arguments and to disregard what the Muslim has told you.


    If mountains really function as whell weights, then they must be much denser than the crust and prevent Earth's precession.
    Not necessarily.

    the mountains are still falling now and then in some countries, till the present time
    This has been a word mistake only, and it will be corrected later on.
    The correct sentence will be: "the meteorites are still falling now and then in some countries, till the present time."
    This is due to the fact that most of the mountains on Earth were some meteorites (or pieces of the destroyed past planets.)


    I mean: the earth moves so regularly and smoothly; to the extent that we move and go here and there and we do not feel it moving, in spite of its fast rotation; while if it wobbles like some irregularly-shaped asteroids, then its rotation will certainly be irregular, when life will be difficult.
    probably becasue the earth is spherical, but that don't prove that it's thanks to mountains.
    Even if the earth is spherical, there are many canyons, depressions and other surface features; and then its movement will not be steady; Glory be to God! Who stabilized its movement making it so regular and smooth; the mountains distribution certainly has a role, in addition to the large amount of water that gives the earth its almost spherical shape.

    Anyhow the result will be the steady movement of the earth. Certainly the mountains have an important role in making this earth movement so regular; in addition to their important role in fixing the crust of the earth.
    And certainly, you didn't even explain WHY they have an important role in fixing the crust of the earth. You said fixing? Soory, but the crust constantly drifts, it's not fixed!
    I think it has a role in fixing and impeding such continental drift. Mountains have some roots or foundations under the ground which fix the mountains themselves in addition to its effect on the crust of the earth.
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    Of course they do not say mountains fallen on the Earth; because they are not aware of such an idea.
    Of course.. But all the types of mountains they listed aren't from meteorites. That's strange since "fallen mountains" are the most mountains on the earth (in your opinion).


    The truth is that you desire to believe her arguments and to disregard what the Muslim has told you.

    What muslims told to me is BASELESS: they just state that mountains act as wheel weights for the Earth. That's really rigorous...

    Thus, I believe the one who provides scientific evidences, not the one who makes an opinion.



    Not necessarily.
    Elaborate please.




    Even if the earth is spherical, there are many canyons, depressions and other surface features; and then its movement will not be steady; Glory be to God! Who stabilized its movement making it so regular and smooth; the mountains distribution certainly has a role, in addition to the large amount of water that gives the earth its almost spherical shape.

    First, canyons and mountains are nothing compared to the radius of the Earth.
    Plus, the fact that our planet is flattened at the poles make an unstability: the precession.


    the mountains distribution certainly has a role
    Baseless assumption.

    I think it has a role in fixing and impeding such continental drift. Mountains have some roots or foundations under the ground which fix the mountains themselves in addition to its effect on the crust of the earth.
    mountains are a consequence of the continental drift. The only important factor that may decrease plate movement would be the convergence itself ( for the collision of Indian and Eurasian plates, see the analogy with a bulldozer).

    Again, fixing isn't suitable, the crust is unstable, unless you talk about the gravitational attration of the crust to the Earth.
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The Arizona crater may not be due to a meteorite; it was almost due the falling of a comet in the past; see this here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...met_of_Arizona

    The Arizona Crater is about 20,000 yrs ago, it's due to a METEORIE, not a COMET!

    There are many theories about this Arizona Crater; some said it was due to meteorites, and some others said the Crater was due to the falling of a comet.


    That comet was a mass of iron and nickel
    nope! Contrary to asteroids, comets are mainly made of dust and hydrogen, methan, water[/quote]

    I go along with you; then what is the composition of this dust?
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    There are many theories about this Arizona Crater; some said it was due to meteorites, and some others said the Crater was due to the falling of a comet.

    So, please give the internet links to those theory stipulating that it's due to a comet.

    Scientists have analysed the composition of the rocks of Canyon Diablo to know that it was a meteorite, not a comet.



    I go alone with you; then what is the composition of this dust?
    this cometary dust is made of silicates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and water ice. It has nothing to do with iron and nickel.


    So, meteorites impacts create craters on Earth, not mountains or crustal roots. To you, there are volcanoes, folding and faulting mountains, and mountains from meteorites. But you aren't able to give, as example, a name of any of the latter type.
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Of course they do not say mountains fallen on the Earth; because they are not aware of such an idea.
    Of course.. But all the types of mountains they listed aren't from meteorites. That's strange since "fallen mountains" are the most mountains on the earth (in your opinion).
    Why don't you accept that masses as big as mountains had fallen on Earth and the planets, while the meteorites are still falling everyday on Earth and the rest of the planets?

    Moreover, what you object about the steady movement of the earth because of the mountains, and you say the steady movement is because of the sphericity of the earth (and the role of Moon).

    But if you know how smooth and steady is the movement of the earth, to the extent that we even do not feel it moving with its fast speed of spinning around itself; but such mountains will certainly have such a role or else there will be vibration and twitching in its movement; like the tyre which is not very regular; it needs some balance with relatively small pieces of lead fixed on it in some estimated manner.


    Not necessarily denser than the crust; although the mountains are dense in fact.


    Even if the earth is spherical, there are many canyons, depressions and other surface features; and then its movement will not be steady; Glory be to God! Who stabilized its movement making it so regular and smooth; the mountains distribution certainly has a role, in addition to the large amount of water that gives the earth its almost spherical shape.
    First, canyons and mountains are nothing compared to the radius of the Earth.
    Plus, the fact that our planet is flattened at the poles make an unstability: the precession.
    Eventhough, it is not so spherical: if we see it without the water of oceans and seas.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    Why don't you accept that masses as big as mountains had fallen on Earth and the planets, while the meteorites are still falling everyday on Earth and the rest of the planets?
    i accept that masses as big as mountains had fallen on the Earth, while i don't accept that mountains can fall.

    Moreover, what you object about the steady movement of the earth because of the mountains, and you say the steady movement is because of the sphericity of the earth (and the role of Moon).

    But if you know how smooth and steady is the movement of the earth, to the extent that we even do not feel it moving with its fast speed of spinning around itself; but such mountains will certainly have such a role or else there will be vibration and twitching in its movement; like the tyre which is not very regular; it needs some balance with relatively small pieces of lead fixed on it in some estimated manner.


    Mountains aren't tall compared to the radius of Earth and are placed in "random places" on the Earth, contrary to a balanced wheel.

    The movement of the earth is smooth (on human time-scale) due to the fact that our planet isn't subjected to a torque which may quickly 'umbalance' it in order we can feel Earth's movement.

    As I said before, if mountains were as wheel weight, they would even prevent the wobble movement of precession.


    Not necessarily denser than the crust; although the mountains are dense in fact.
    No, mountains are almost as dense as the crust (about 2.7g/cm³), whereas the asthenosphere is about 3.3g/cm³ and the overall density of our planet is about 5.55g/cm³.



    Moreover, the professor of astronomy explained that. So, why don't you ask her your question and then put in this forum the internet links to her answer?



    Eventhough, it is not so spherical: if we see it without the water of oceans and seas.
    true! But the bugle of the Earth make not the earth so spherical, so external torques such as Sun's and Moon's may be applied on the Earth.



    Therefore, mountains aren't 'fallen' and don't stabilize the Earth nor the crust; unless you bring scientific evidences and/or any scientist's detailled answer agreeing with you, instead of opinions.
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    [quote="termina"]
    The interpretation:
    One of the days of God equals one thousand of our years, according to our days.
    So "in 2 days" means in 2000 years, and "in 4 days" means in 4000 years, and the total will be "6 days" which equalls 6000 years, which is the period required by that sun to transform into an earth with a cold crust.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth

    No, 6 Days is rather the period of the total Creation of the Heavens and the Earth and which is between them both (that's to say the creation of the Universe).
    Obviously, according to the Quran, the Universe was created in 6,000 years only.
    If you go to the Arabic word itself as is it used in some other ayat of the Quran, you will find it indicate the transformation from one state to another; like this aya in the Quran39: 6
    يَخْلُقُكُمْ فِي بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ خَلْقًا مِن بَعْدِ خَلْقٍ
    The explanation:
    (He does create you in your mothers' wombs: creation after creation)

    These are the phases of the fetus development.

    It means: He transforms you from one phase of creation to another, inside the womb of your mothers.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth

    While the "heavens" in plural here with the word "and" joining the "earth" and "heavens" indicates the planets and the earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#Heavens

    Therefore, One of the days of God equals one thousand of our years, according to our days.
    So "in 2 days" means in 2000 years, and "in 4 days" means in 4000 years, and the total will be "6 days" which equalls 6000 years, which is the period required by that sun to transform into an earth with a cold crust.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Why don't you accept that masses as big as mountains had fallen on Earth and the planets, while the meteorites are still falling everyday on Earth and the rest of the planets?
    i accept that masses as big as mountains had fallen on the Earth, while i don't accept that mountains can fall.
    How is that? The portions of the past broken up planets had landed on Earth in its early formation when the crust was not so solid and hard. Actually following after 2000 years of the beginning of its fromation; and these mountains became firmly anchored on the earth with some roots under the ground, and they included the seed of life in the form of seeds and branches of trees, corpses of animals and man coming from the past inhabited planets.

    Mountains aren't tall compared to the radius of Earth and are placed in "random places" on the Earth, contrary to a balanced wheel.
    This "random places" on the Earth indicates its function as the weights of a balanced wheel; because there is some irregularity of the Earth, and the mountains had to be place in such "random places" on the Earth.

    if mountains were as wheel weight, they would even prevent the wobble movement of precession.
    Whether they prevent or not such wobble precession; but in fact they made the earth regularly move in its spinning.

    No, mountains are almost as dense as the crust (about 2.7g/cm³), whereas the asthenosphere is about 3.3g/cm³ and the overall density of our planet is about 5.55g/cm³.
    Thank you for explaining what I want to say.

    Moreover, the professor of astronomy explained that. So, why don't you ask her your question and then put in this forum the internet links to her answer?
    I do not dictate from lectures like students, but I may tell her that and not necessarily her reply is the correct or wrong one.


    Therefore, mountains aren't 'fallen' and don't stabilize the Earth nor the crust; unless you bring scientific evidences and/or any scientist's detailled answer agreeing with you, instead of opinions.
    Then what are we doing all this time? And you have returned to the initial point.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mountains as wheel weights.

    Imagine a range of mountains 2 kms high on average, and 2 kms wide, and 1000 kms long. At an average specific gravity of 2, they would weigh 8 trillion tonnes. Now imagine the Earth has 20 such ranges, we end up with 160 trillion tonnes of mountains. Now add a massive fudge factor and make it 600 trillion, just to make sure we do not underestimate.

    The Earth weighs 6E24 tonnes. This means the weight of all the mountains on Earth put together make up one part in 10 billion.

    So if only one part in 10 billion is sticking up above the normal ground level, it is supposed to be an effective wheel weight???

    Pull my other leg. It has bells on it!
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Mountains as wheel weights.

    Imagine a range of mountains 2 kms high on average, and 2 kms wide, and 1000 kms long. At an average specific gravity of 2, they would weigh 8 trillion tonnes. Now imagine the Earth has 20 such ranges, we end up with 160 trillion tonnes of mountains. Now add a massive fudge factor and make it 600 trillion, just to make sure we do not underestimate.

    The Earth weighs 6E24 tonnes. This means the weight of all the mountains on Earth put together make up one part in 10 billion.

    So if only one part in 10 billion is sticking up above the normal ground level, it is supposed to be an effective wheel weight???

    Pull my other leg. It has bells on it!
    Don't pull your leg or arm; the earth is about regularly spherical (I only said about spherical); this in addition of the large amount of water filling the oceans and seas; then in case the mountains are so tiny as you estimated; it is all that needed to stand for any irregularity in its shape so as to bring about its smooth movement without any twitching or vibration. (The weights applied to the wheel are tiny in relation to the wheel itself; such weights are designed to make correction and cause the smooth regular movement of the wheel without any awkwardness in movement.)
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Mountains as wheel weights.

    Imagine a range of mountains 2 kms high on average, and 2 kms wide, and 1000 kms long. At an average specific gravity of 2, they would weigh 8 trillion tonnes. Now imagine the Earth has 20 such ranges, we end up with 160 trillion tonnes of mountains. Now add a massive fudge factor and make it 600 trillion, just to make sure we do not underestimate.

    The Earth weighs 6E24 tonnes. This means the weight of all the mountains on Earth put together make up one part in 10 billion.

    So if only one part in 10 billion is sticking up above the normal ground level, it is supposed to be an effective wheel weight???

    Pull my other leg. It has bells on it!
    Don't pull your leg or arm; the earth is about regularly spherical (I only said about spherical); this in addition of the large amount of water filling the oceans and seas; then in case the mountains are so tiny as you estimated; it is all that needed to stand for any irregularity in its shape so as to bring about its smooth movement without any twitching or vibration. (The weights applied to the wheel are tiny in relation to the wheel itself; such weights are designed to make correction and cause the smooth regular movement of the wheel without any awkwardness in movement.)
    Nonsense. The earth is smoother than a billiard ball on the same scale.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    If you go to the Arabic word itself as is it used in some other ayat of the Quran, you will find it indicate the transformation from one state to another; like this aya in the Quran39: 6
    يَخْلُقُكُمْ فِي بُطُونِ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ خَلْقًا مِن بَعْدِ خَلْقٍ
    The explanation:
    (He does create you in your mothers' wombs: creation after creation)

    These are the phases of the fetus development.

    It means: He transforms you from one phase of creation to another, inside the womb of your mothers.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth
    it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this forum or the previous posts.



    While the "heavens" in plural here with the word "and" joining the "earth" and "heavens" indicates the planets and the earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#Heavens


    That's baseless. Heavens in the Quran isn't a metonymy (ie, the content of the sky), because it states:

    Lo! is it not unto Allah that belongeth whosoever is IN the heavens and whosoever is in the earth? (10:66)

    Allah it is who raised up the heavens without visible supports , then mounted the Throne , and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service[...]
    (13:2)

    Planets without visible support/pillars? this verse make sense with the sly itsefl.

    17.44 . The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him , and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise ; but ye understand not their praise . Lo! He is ever Clement , Forgiving .

    Here we learn that the heavens are the 7 heavens and that there are something in it. According to islamic traditions, Muhammad went to these 7 heavens with the angel Jibril. He saw that each heaven contains a prophet (in the 1st heaven, Adam for instance!) and was guarded by an angel.

    So, these 7 heavens aren't planets.


    Hast thou not seen that unto Allah payeth adoration whosoever is in the heavens and whosoever is in the earth , and the sun , and the moon , and the stars , and the hills , and the trees , and the beasts , and many of mankind , while there are many unto whom the doom is justly due . He whom Allah scorneth , there is none to give him honor . Lo! Allah doeth what He will .
    (22.18)

    Here Allah mentions what there are in the heavens and what there are in the earth:


    In the earth: mankind, beasts, trees, mountains.
    In the heavens: Sun, Moon, stars.

    If one followed your interpretation, one would think, from this verse, that the sun, the moon and the stars are On planets.


    By the way, if according ot the Quran, the earth is in the heavens, it wouldn't even say "the heavens and the earth, and what's between them both", because something which is between another thing isn't contained in the latter; that's logical!



    THUS: *the 7 heavens aren't atmospheric layers but heavens.And heavens in the Quran isn't planets + the Earth. it's merely the sky.

    Your interpretation is rather very personnal, and can be refuted by refering other quranic verses (that's Qur'an Al Karim: the explanation of the Quran by the Quran), hadiths, and famous islamic scholars' tafseers (such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn).


    Therefore, the creation of the Earth and the heavens (ie, the sky itsefl) took 6,000 years, according to the Quran.




    How is that? The portions of the past broken up planets had landed on Earth in its early formation when the crust was not so solid and hard. Actually following after 2000 years of the beginning of its fromation; and these mountains became firmly anchored on the earth with some roots under the ground, and they included the seed of life in the form of seeds and branches of trees, corpses of animals and man coming from the past inhabited planets.

    You believe that meteorite create mountains rooted?

    Nonsense! The crustal root under mountains is mainly due to compressional forces.
    I'm afraid, when meteorites collide with our planet, they create craters not mountains!



    This "random places" on the Earth indicates its function as the weights of a balanced wheel; because there is some irregularity of the Earth, and the mountains had to be place in such "random places" on the Earth.
    I don't think that mountains really compensate those irregularity: some of them are almost 9km tall; so, on the contrary they seem to tend to contribute to irregularity:

    http://<br /> http://www.ipt.univ-pa...g/gfm21f23.gif





    To compensate the main irregularity of the Earth, mountains must be at poles and be as tall and heavy as the bugle at the equator.

    No, concevably mountains MUSN'T be in "random places" to compensate irregularities.



    Whether they prevent or not such wobble precession; but in fact they made the earth regularly move in its spinning.
    Precession is a proof that Earth's spinning isn't regular.



    Thank you for explaining what I want to say.
    Errr... Mountains aren't dense. Please read my explanation again.


    I do not dictate from lectures like students, but I may tell her that and not necessarily her reply is the correct or wrong one.
    Well, just try to tell her that.





    Then what are we doing all this time? And you have returned to the initial point.

    No, this is merely a conclusion.


    Then what are we doing all this time?
    You put arguments that are obviously baseless and you aren't sometimes able to give examples of what you stated, and above all you didn't refered to scientific sources. The main counter-arguments is Arizona Crater. the celestal body that create it didn't make any mountains, it's obvious. But, you knew that this examples is a problem, so you make a BASELESS and WRONG claim by saying that it's due to a comet.


    (The weights applied to the wheel are tiny in relation to the wheel itself; such weights are designed to make correction and cause the smooth regular movement of the wheel without any awkwardness in movement.)
    * if you reduce our planet to the size of a wheel, the highest mountain would be even TINIEST than wheel weights. We can do the calculs togheter, if you like.

    * The density of the wheel weights is greater than that of the wheel itsefl, otherwise, to keep their mass, they wouldn't be tiny.
    As I said, mountains have about the same density of the crust and are LESS dense than the Earth. If they could balance the Earth, then they would be more dense than the entire planet, or be even higher.

    * To function as stabilizers, these wheel weights must be placed in precise places, whereas mountains are almost in "random places".
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Nonsense. The earth is smoother than a billiard ball on the same scale.
    Nonsense. Such regular and smooth movement of the earth to the extent that we do not feel it; such regular and smooth spinning - in spite of its fast speed - needs some delicate balancing.

    As it is in the Quran 16: 15
    وَأَلْقَى فِي الأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ وَأَنْهَارًا وَسُبُلاً لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ*
    The explanation: (And He cast [mountains] that landed on the earth; lest it should irregularly move with you)
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  55. #54  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Nonsense. The earth is smoother than a billiard ball on the same scale.
    Nonsense. Such regular and smooth movement of the earth to the extent that we do not feel it; such spinning - is spite of its fast speed - needs some delicate balacing. As it is in the Quran 16: 15
    وَأَلْقَى فِي الأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ وَأَنْهَارًا وَسُبُلاً لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ*
    The explanation: (And He cast [mountains] that landed on the earth; lest it should irregularly move with you)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    "1) The Earth is smoother than a billiard ball.

    Maybe you’ve heard this statement: if the Earth were shrunk down to the size of a billiard ball, it would actually be smoother than one. When I was in third grade, my teacher said basketball, but it’s the same concept. But is it true? Let’s see. Strap in, there’s a wee bit of math (like, a really wee bit).

    OK, first, how smooth is a billiard ball? According to the World Pool-Billiard Association, a pool ball is 2.25 inches in diameter, and has a tolerance of +/- 0.005 inches. In other words, it must have no pits or bumps more than 0.005 inches in height. That’s pretty smooth. The ratio of the size of an allowable bump to the size of the ball is 0.005/2.25 = about 0.002.

    The Earth has a diameter of about 12,735 kilometers (on average, see below for more on this). Using the smoothness ratio from above, the Earth would be an acceptable pool ball if it had no bumps (mountains) or pits (trenches) more than 12,735 km x 0.00222 = about 28 km in size.

    The highest point on Earth is the top of Mt. Everest, at 8.85 km. The deepest point on Earth is the Marianas Trench, at about 11 km deep.

    Hey, those are within the tolerances! So for once, an urban legend is correct. If you shrank the Earth down to the size of a billiard ball, it would be smoother."

    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    The Earth has a diameter of about 12,735 kilometers ...
    The highest point on Earth is the top of Mt. Everest, at 8.85 km. The deepest point on Earth is the Marianas Trench, at about 11 km deep.
    Eventhough, there will be some vibration and jerking; and such mountain ranges will have such effect of stabilizing the movement of the earth; in addition to tilting the earth on an oblique axis of about 23 degrees.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Heavens in the Quran isn't a metonymy (ie, the content of the sky), because it states:

    Lo! is it not unto Allah that belongeth whosoever is IN the heavens and whosoever is in the earth? (10:66)

    Allah it is who raised up the heavens without visible supports , then mounted the Throne , and compelled the sun and the moon to be of service[...]
    (13:2)


    17.44 . The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him , and there is not a thing but hymneth his praise ; but ye understand not their praise . Lo! He is ever Clement , Forgiving .

    Here we learn that the heavens are the 7 heavens and that there are something in it. According to islamic traditions, Muhammad went to these 7 heavens with the angel Jibril. He saw that each heaven contains a prophet (in the 1st heaven, Adam for instance!) and was guarded by an angel.

    So, these 7 heavens aren't planets.


    Hast thou not seen that unto Allah payeth adoration whosoever is in the heavens and whosoever is in the earth , and the sun , and the moon , and the stars , and the hills , and the trees , and the beasts , and many of mankind , while there are many unto whom the doom is justly due . He whom Allah scorneth , there is none to give him honor . Lo! Allah doeth what He will .
    (22.18)

    Here Allah mentions what there are in the heavens and what there are in the earth:


    In the earth: mankind, beasts, trees, mountains.
    In the heavens: Sun, Moon, stars.

    If one followed your interpretation, one would think, from this verse, that the sun, the moon and the stars are On planets.


    By the way, if according ot the Quran, the earth is in the heavens, it wouldn't even say "the heavens and the earth, and what's between them both", because something which is between another thing isn't contained in the latter; that's logical!



    THUS: *the 7 heavens aren't atmospheric layers but heavens.And heavens in the Quran isn't planets + the Earth. it's merely the sky.

    Your interpretation is rather very personnal, and can be refuted by refering other quranic verses (that's Qur'an Al Karim: the explanation of the Quran by the Quran), hadiths, and famous islamic scholars' tafseers (such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas, Al Jalalayn).


    Therefore, the creation of the Earth and the heavens (ie, the sky itsefl) took 6,000 years, according to the Quran.

    It seems that you know Arabic. Anyhow, the word سماء in Arabic means everything above you.
    This word in the Quran came in different forms: singular, plural; once it come alone, while another time it comes together with the أرض which means: the earth.
    To each of these forms is its meaning and implications; e.g. the aya in the Quran 27: 60
    أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ ...
    The explanation: ( [Is that, which they associate with God, better] or is He Who created the heavens and the earth, and send down for you [rain] water from the sky; wherewith We cause to grow delightful orchards …etc.)

    So the heavens, here, means the planets, and the indication of that is His saying –be exalted –
    وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَاء
    i.e. (and send down for you [rain] water from the sky), and by this He explained that the ‘sky’ is different from the ‘heavens’ because He separated between the word ‘sky’ and the word ‘heavens’. He means by the word سماء i.e. the ‘sky’, the space or the gaseous layers.
    While the ‘heavens’ means the planets because He has mentioned it together with the ‘earth’, and the meaning is: the heavens which are of the same kind as the Earth.

    And you will find many examples here:
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...Sky_or_Heaven_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#Heavens

    And the سماوات or the "heavens" means:
    1-The gaseous heavens or the gaseous layers.
    2-The planets and the earth.
    3-The ethereal heavens or "kingdom of heavens".


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    It seems that you know Arabic. Anyhow, the word سماء in Arabic means everything above you.
    This word in the Quran came in different forms: singular, plural; once it come alone, while another time it comes together with the أرض which means: the earth.
    To each of these forms is its meaning and implications; e.g. the aya in the Quran 27: 60
    أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ ...
    The explanation: ( [Is that, which they associate with God, better] or is He Who created the heavens and the earth, and send down for you [rain] water from the sky; wherewith We cause to grow delightful orchards …etc.)

    So the heavens, here, means the planets, and the indication of that is His saying –be exalted –
    وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَاء
    i.e. (and send down for you [rain] water from the sky), and by this He explained that the ‘sky’ is different from the ‘heavens’ because He separated between the word ‘sky’ and the word ‘heavens’. He means by the word سماء i.e. the ‘sky’, the space or the gaseous layers.

    Your comment isn't logical. the fact that the Quran deals with the Heavens then with the sky doesn't prove that heavens means here 'planets'.

    45.13 . And hath made of service unto you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth ; it is all from Him . Lo! herein verily are portents for people who reflect .
    Here, for instance, it's clear that heavens mean heavens, the visible sky, not planets.




    And another time, it will be mentioned alone without mentioning the ‘earth’ with it.

    An example of that is His saying – be exalted- in the Quran 17: 44

    تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ وَإِن مِّن شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدَهِ

    The explanation : ( The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him; and there is not a thing but hymns His praise …)

    Hence, the ‘heavens’ here means the ethereal layers; because they are mentioned before mentioning the earth and there is no ‘and’ between the two words.[ In this Quranic revelation, the word سبع i.e. seven in Arabic is intervening between the ‘heavens’ and the ‘earth’.]

    No, there are the same seven heavens as those which were mentionned in Surah Fusilat: The layers one above the other where Muhammad found prophets, angels and rivers.


    53.26 . And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth!

    To you, it's the etheral heavens.
    And yet, you indicated that heavens mentionned alone means gaseous heavens. What a quick change of opinion! you're almost contradicting yourself, so you make 'exceptions'. But those 'exceptions' are enough to show that your intepretations are far-fetched.


    What you do is easy:

    when heavens is mentionned only:

    you interpret it as you want=> you state that it means planets, for instance.


    However, when the context makes clear that heavens means heavens,
    => you're obliged to give this term a different interpretation from the previous case.

    I'd say that it means here 'black hole', my friend would say that it means 'comets', and i'd find verses which "don't seem" to contradict my interpretation.
    Everybody can do that.


    But, one must refer to specialist of tasfeer, otherwise anyone would interpret the Quran as one want, and there would be many divergences in the interpretations.


    Here's the tafseer of the specialist Ibn Kathr who knows Classical Arabic better than me and you:

    (Is not He Who created the heavens) meaning, He created those heavens which are so high and serene, with their shining stars and revolving planets.


    the reason why the Quran choose the word 'sky' here is probably to mean the first heaven, which belongs to the Heavens (ie, the 7 heavens). However, if it were written 'the heavens and the sky and what's between them both' I would maybe agree with you.



    And contrary what you say in your site, the atmosphere isn't made of 7 layers, but 4 or 5 layers: troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere (and exosphere).


    About the creation of the heavens and the earth, you interpret it as atmopshere, but even the atmopshere didn't take 2,000 years to be formed.



    now, let's come back to the subject of this forum, which is mountains and their roles.
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Your comment isn't logical. the fact that the Quran deals with the Heavens then with the sky doesn't prove that heavens means here 'planets'.


    The late Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly was an inspired interpreter of the Quran and was acquainted about the Bible; he did not graduate at any school or college not even a primary school; but only he knew reading and writing Arabic.

    In his book (The Universe and the Quran) which I have translated and put it at our website: http://universeandquran.t35.com he classified the kinds of the سماء i.e. "heaven" and سماوات i.e. "heavens".

    A- The سماء or "heaven" or "sky" mentioned in the Quran in singular means the space, and may mean the gaseous heavens or gaseous layers of the upper atmosphere.

    B- The سماوات or "heavens" mentioned in the Quran in plural has three implications:

    1-The gaseous heavens or the gaseous layers of the upper atmsophere.
    2-The planets and the earth, which indicate that the heavens are of the same kind as the earth where there is the letter و i.e. the word "and".
    3-The ethereal heavens or "kingdom of heavens", which are the ancient heavens: the issue of the destruction of the past solar systems in the past Doomsdays.

    This needs much study and deep contemplation, and many advantages may be obtained by studying this subject at these links:

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...Sky_or_Heaven_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#Heavens


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    The late Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly was an inspired interpreter of the Quran and was acquainted about the Bible; he did not graduate at any school or college not even a primary school; but only he knew reading and writing Arabic.
    I can bring Ibn Kathir, Ibn Abbas and al jalalayn. They don't do concordism and are credible contrary to your interpreter. plus, he can't make concordism: he doesn't know about astronomy: indeed, he thinks that the atmopshere is made of 7 layers, and that the Moon doesn't spin around its axis.



    In his book (The Universe and the Quran) which I have translated and put it at our website: http://universeandquran.t35.com he classified the kinds of the سماء i.e. "heaven" and سماوات i.e. "heavens".

    A- The سماء or "heaven" or "sky" mentioned in the Quran in singular means the space, and may mean the gaseous heavens or gaseous layers of the upper atmosphere.

    B- The سماوات or "heavens" mentioned in the Quran in plural has three implications:

    1-The gaseous heavens or the gaseous layers of the upper atmsophere.
    2-The planets and the earth, which indicate that the heavens are of the same kind as the earth where there is the letter و i.e. the word "and".
    3-The ethereal heavens or "kingdom of heavens", which are the ancient heavens: the issue of the destruction of the past solar systems in the past Doomsdays.

    This needs much study and deep contemplation, and many advantages may be obtained by studying this subject at these links:

    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...Sky_or_Heaven_
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#Heavens


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com


    As I showed, these meanings he give to the term sky/heavens donesn't depend on the context of verses itsefl, but on his own desires: he first gives 'rules' to know the exact meaning of the terms sky/heavens in each verse, but he latter makes some quick changes of opinion to add new meanings.

    In other words, his interpretation is confusing and far-fetched. :?
    So, it's far from credible.

    I think that it's him that state that a type of mountains are fallen from the sky. And you believe him...



    [NB. The atmosphere includes the air and the gaseous layers or heavens; the gaseous heavens lie above the air and above the region of the cloud, which lies between the air and the gaseous layers or heavens; see the following lines –the translator.]

    If "air" means troposphere, you're wrong. The regions of clouds are generally in troposphere.

    Moreover, troposphere is as well a gaseous layer. In fact, although the pression of gas decrease with highness, ALL the Earth's atmopshere is gaseous layers.
    There are no first the "air" and above it, "gaseous layers".

    So, all your interpretation with gaseous heavens, gaseous layers, sky, ect... is consequently refuted.

    So, now let's come back to mountains and their functions, pls.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    [quote="termina"] Your comment isn't logical. the fact that the Quran deals with the Heavens then with the sky doesn't prove that heavens means here 'planets'.

    The indication that the "heavens" here means the planets is that it is mentioned together with the "earth" with "and" joining the two which implies the same kind as the earth. Moreover, the "heavens and the earth" are mentioned before mentioning the ''sky" denoting that the planets and the earth had been created at first then the gaseous layers were formed from the planets themselves.


    45.13 . And hath made of service unto you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth ; it is all from Him . Lo! herein verily are portents for people who reflect .
    Here, for instance, it's clear that heavens mean heavens, the visible sky, not planets.
    The "heavens" here means the gaseous heavens or layers of the upper atmosphere that is above the layer of the troposphere. And true the "heavens" here does not mean the planets.

    And another time, it will be mentioned alone without mentioning the ‘earth’ with it.

    An example of that is His saying – be exalted- in the Quran 17: 44

    تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ وَإِن مِّن شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدَهِ

    The explanation : ( The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him; and there is not a thing but hymns His praise …)

    Hence, the ‘heavens’ here means the ethereal layers; because they are mentioned before mentioning the earth and there is no ‘and’ between the two words.[ In this Quranic revelation, the word سبع i.e. seven in Arabic is intervening between the ‘heavens’ and the ‘earth’.]

    No, there are the same seven heavens as those which were mentionned in Surah Fusilat: The layers one above the other where Muhammad found prophets, angels and rivers.
    How can you assert this? while Prophet Mohammed -salam be to him- went with his ethereal soul together with the angel Gabriel, to the ethereal heavens where he saw many prophets there.


    53.26 . And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth!

    To you, it's the etheral heavens.
    And yet, you indicated that heavens mentionned alone means gaseous heavens. What a quick change of opinion! you're almost contradicting yourself, so you make 'exceptions'. But those 'exceptions' are enough to show that your intepretations are far-fetched.
    In this aya, these are the "ethereal heavens"; for they are the habitation of the angels who are ethereal spiritual but not material creatures.


    What you do is easy:

    when heavens is mentionned only:

    you interpret it as you want=> you state that it means planets, for instance.


    However, when the context makes clear that heavens means heavens,
    => you're obliged to give this term a different interpretation from the previous case.

    I'd say that it means here 'black hole', my friend would say that it means 'comets', and i'd find verses which "don't seem" to contradict my interpretation.
    Everybody can do that.
    Nothing like that; and I do not interpret of my own accord; only I carry the interpretation of the late inspired interpreter who did not graduate at any school, neither did he belong to any sect, other than being a monotheist.


    But, one must refer to specialist of tasfeer, otherwise anyone would interpret the Quran as one want, and there would be many divergences in the interpretations.


    Here's the tafseer of the specialist Ibn Kathr who knows Classical Arabic better than me and you:

    (Is not He Who created the heavens) meaning, He created those heavens which are so high and serene, with their shining stars and revolving planets.

    The commentation of the Quran is two kinds: One comes from the studying and learning, and the other comes from the inspiration which is higher than the rest of the commentation.

    Ibn Kathier was a brilliant commentator of the Quran; but evenso the inspiration is higher in rank. And I tell you this aya, and see who - of all commentators: Ibn Kathier and others who may know its meaning:
    Who is the one in the aya 2: 17 who sought fire?
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)


    the reason why the Quran choose the word 'sky' here is probably to mean the first heaven, which belongs to the Heavens (ie, the 7 heavens). However, if it were written 'the heavens and the sky and what's between them both' I would maybe agree with you.
    Here we come to explaining the Quran according to your opinion.

    And contrary what you say in your site, the atmosphere isn't made of 7 layers, but 4 or 5 layers: troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere (and exosphere).
    The troposphere is not included; it is the الجو or the air which is a mixture of many gases, and in which there is the wind and the cloud. The cloud is the separating between the earth" and the "sky" or "heaven" The layers of the gaseous heavens are above this troposphere where there is not any wind to mix the gases; and therefore, they separated by time. They are seven layers with their gases separated because of the difference in specific gravities of such gases. But I couldn't yet find something certain about them.

    About the creation of the heavens and the earth, you interpret it as atmopshere, but even the atmopshere didn't take 2,000 years to be formed.
    This is according to the aya where God - be glorified - said that He separated the [gaseous heavens] in two days (or two thousand years)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    [quote="termina"] Your comment isn't logical. the fact that the Quran deals with the Heavens then with the sky doesn't prove that heavens means here 'planets'.

    The indication that the "heavens" here means the planets is that it is mentioned together with the "earth" with "and" joining the two which implies the same kind as the earth. Moreover, the "heavens and the earth" are mentioned before mentioning the ''sky" denoting that the planets and the earth had been created at first then the gaseous layers were formed from the planets themselves.


    45.13 . And hath made of service unto you whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth ; it is all from Him . Lo! herein verily are portents for people who reflect .
    Here, for instance, it's clear that heavens mean heavens, the visible sky, not planets.
    The "heavens" here means the gaseous heavens or layers of the upper atmosphere that is above the layer of the troposphere. And true the "heavens" here does not mean the planets.

    And another time, it will be mentioned alone without mentioning the ‘earth’ with it.

    An example of that is His saying – be exalted- in the Quran 17: 44

    تُسَبِّحُ لَهُ السَّمَاوَاتُ السَّبْعُ وَالأَرْضُ وَمَن فِيهِنَّ وَإِن مِّن شَيْءٍ إِلاَّ يُسَبِّحُ بِحَمْدَهِ

    The explanation : ( The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise Him; and there is not a thing but hymns His praise …)

    Hence, the ‘heavens’ here means the ethereal layers; because they are mentioned before mentioning the earth and there is no ‘and’ between the two words.[ In this Quranic revelation, the word سبع i.e. seven in Arabic is intervening between the ‘heavens’ and the ‘earth’.]

    No, there are the same seven heavens as those which were mentionned in Surah Fusilat: The layers one above the other where Muhammad found prophets, angels and rivers.
    How can you assert this? while Prophet Mohammed -salam be to him- went with his ethereal soul together with the angel Gabriel, to the ethereal heavens where he saw many prophets there.


    53.26 . And how many angels are in the heavens whose intercession availeth naught save after Allah giveth leave to whom He chooseth and accepteth!

    To you, it's the etheral heavens.
    And yet, you indicated that heavens mentionned alone means gaseous heavens. What a quick change of opinion! you're almost contradicting yourself, so you make 'exceptions'. But those 'exceptions' are enough to show that your intepretations are far-fetched.
    In this aya, these are the "ethereal heavens"; for they are the habitation of the angels who are ethereal spiritual but not material creatures.


    What you do is easy:

    when heavens is mentionned only:

    you interpret it as you want=> you state that it means planets, for instance.


    However, when the context makes clear that heavens means heavens,
    => you're obliged to give this term a different interpretation from the previous case.

    I'd say that it means here 'black hole', my friend would say that it means 'comets', and i'd find verses which "don't seem" to contradict my interpretation.
    Everybody can do that.
    Nothing like that; and I do not interpret of my own accord; only I carry the interpretation of the late inspired interpreter who did not graduate at any school, neither did he belong to any sect, other than being a monotheist.


    But, one must refer to specialist of tasfeer, otherwise anyone would interpret the Quran as one want, and there would be many divergences in the interpretations.


    Here's the tafseer of the specialist Ibn Kathr who knows Classical Arabic better than me and you:

    (Is not He Who created the heavens) meaning, He created those heavens which are so high and serene, with their shining stars and revolving planets.

    The commentation of the Quran is two kinds: One comes from the studying and learning, and the other comes from the inspiration which is higher than the rest of the commentation.

    Ibn Kathier was a brilliant commentator of the Quran; but evenso the inspiration is higher in rank. And I tell you this aya, and see who - of all commentators: Ibn Kathier and others who may know its meaning:
    Who is the one in the aya 2: 17 who sought fire?
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)


    the reason why the Quran choose the word 'sky' here is probably to mean the first heaven, which belongs to the Heavens (ie, the 7 heavens). However, if it were written 'the heavens and the sky and what's between them both' I would maybe agree with you.
    Here we come to explaining the Quran according to your opinion.

    And contrary what you say in your site, the atmosphere isn't made of 7 layers, but 4 or 5 layers: troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, thermosphere (and exosphere).
    The troposphere is not included; it is the الجو or the air which is a mixture of many gases, and in which there is the wind and the cloud. The cloud is the separating between the earth" and the "sky" or "heaven" The layers of the gaseous heavens are above this troposphere where there is not any wind to mix the gases; and therefore, they separated by time. They are seven layers with their gases separated because of the difference in specific gravities of such gases. But I couldn't yet find something certain about them.

    About the creation of the heavens and the earth, you interpret it as atmopshere, but even the atmopshere didn't take 2,000 years to be formed.
    This is according to the aya where God - be glorified - said that He separated the [gaseous heavens] in two days (or two thousand years)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    Moreover, the "heavens and the earth" are mentioned before mentioning the ''sky" denoting that the planets and the earth had been created at first then the gaseous layers were formed from the planets themselves.
    It denotes nothing, it's your imagination. The creation of heavens and earth took 6 Days. In a verse, it's also stated that heavens, earth, and what's between them both were created in 6 Days.

    So, the Earth (ard), the planets (samawat) and the space (baynahumma) were created for 6,000 years only?



    *Either you interpretation is true, then the Quran is WRONG because the space wasn't created in 6,000 years.
    *Or, you merely misinterpreted the verse.



    By the way, i've already explained to you that "sky" may mean the first heaven, that's to say the the sky nearer to the earth.



    And true the "heavens" here does not mean the planets.
    yes, because the context of the verse makes it clear. Actually, you take advantage of the "unclear" verses context to interpret heavens truly as
    you want!


    How can you assert this? while Prophet Mohammed -salam be to him- went with his ethereal soul together with the angel Gabriel, to the ethereal heavens where he saw many prophets there.

    No, that journey wasn't made with the soul of Muhammad but with his own body. Simple! There are no billions of "7 sevens heavens", there is one "7 heavens".
    proof: the first heaven (Sama ad Duniya) is the protected heaven, and the visible heaven. there is in it angels, and yet it's the visible heaven.


    Nothing like that; and I do not interpret of my own accord; only I carry the interpretation of the late inspired interpreter who did not graduate at any school, neither did he belong to any sect, other than being a monotheist.
    Oh, I thought it was your article, sorry.
    But your inspired interpreter really interprets according to his own desires. As I said, he put 'rules' which make it possible to know the exact meaning of the word "sky" and "heavens" in each verse, and then he often breaks them (ie, his 'rules').

    He wants to be irrefutable by giving a special meaning to a word in a specific verse and if one tells him that this meaning is wrong by bringing other verses containning this word, he would say that this word has his meaning in only his "favourite" verse.


    That makes his interpretation confusing, far-fetched and thus non-credible.





    The commentation of the Quran is two kinds: One comes from the studying and learning, and the other comes from the inspiration which is higher than the rest of the commentation.

    Ibn Kathier was a brilliant commentator of the Quran; but evenso the inspiration is higher in rank. And I tell you this aya, and see who - of all commentators: Ibn Kathier and others who may know its meaning:
    Who is the one in the aya 2: 17 who sought fire?
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)
    You interpreter is a pure concordist, he is obviously inspired by modern science. He doesn't use the hadiths to interpret the Quran, contrary to Ibn kathir, Ibn Abbas,ect...; instead he makes his own interpretations (inspired by science).


    The troposphere is not included; it is the الجو or the air which is a mixture of many gases, and in which there is the wind and the cloud. The cloud is the separating between the earth" and the "sky" or "heaven" The layers of the gaseous heavens are above this troposphere where there is not any wind to mix the gases; and therefore, they separated by time. They are seven layers with their gases separated because of the difference in specific gravities of such gases. But I couldn't yet find something certain about them.

    So you separate the air from the "gaseous heavens". I'm afraid but no, troposphere is among those gaseous layers:
    (Troposphere=>Stratosphere=>Mesosphere=>Thermosphe re=>Exosphere)



    http://<br /> <a href="http://en.wik...here</a><br />



    Now, let's come back to the subject about mountains.


    http://www.ipt.univ-paris8.fr/vgodar...g/gfm21f23.gif


    As you stated, the water that covers the ocean 'compensates' irregularities.
    regarding mountains themsevles: if they compensated those irregularities, they would be rather 'put' just on oceanic crust (ie, instead of water in oceans), as I showed in the following picture:

     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Moreover, the "heavens and the earth" are mentioned before mentioning the ''sky" denoting that the planets and the earth had been created at first then the gaseous layers were formed from the planets themselves.
    It denotes nothing, it's your imagination.

    I asked you a question, and I am waiting your answer: Who is the one that sought fire in the aya 2: 17

    And I said consult the commentation of Ibn Katheir and Ibn Abbas and all other commentators: and I am waiting you to tell us who is this one; and if in case you do not reach to this; also tell us honestly.

    And I shall answer your objections by God's will.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    I asked you a question, and I am waiting your answer: Who is the one that sought fire in the aya 2: 17

    And I said consult the commentation of Ibn Katheir and Ibn Abbas and all other commentators: and I am waiting you to tell us who is this one; and if in case you do not reach to this; also tell us honestly.

    And I shall answer your objections by God's will.
    This verse is a parable. 'Fire' , or rather the light it emits, symbolises the faith, the guidance, safety.

    And 'darkness' means here the misguidance.

    This verse, according to its context, refers to hypocrites and disbelievers.





    Ibn Kathir:
    http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1110

    Al Jalalayn:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMad...rofile=0<br />

    Ibn Abbas:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMad...rofile=0<br />
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    Moreover, the "heavens and the earth" are mentioned before mentioning the ''sky" denoting that the planets and the earth had been created at first then the gaseous layers were formed from the planets themselves.
    It denotes nothing, it's your imagination. The creation of heavens and earth took 6 Days. In a verse, it's also stated that heavens, earth, and what's between them both were created in 6 Days.

    So, the Earth (ard), the planets (samawat) and the space (baynahumma) were created for 6,000 years only?


    *Either you interpretation is true, then the Quran is WRONG because the space wasn't created in 6,000 years.
    *Or, you merely misinterpreted the verse.

    We said "the heavens and the earth" means the planets and the earth: where the heavens are of the same kind as the earth and the two words are joined by the word "and".

    "All that is between them" are the moons and the meteorites; because they are situated between the planets including the earth.

    So neither is the Quran wrong, nor is the interpreter.

    The duration of the formation of the earth, the planets, the moons and the gaseous layers of the earth:

    And all the planets and the earth and all that is between them of moons are created or formed in 6 days of the days of the Hereafter: each day equals 6000 of our years.
    Therefore, the planets and the earth and the moons were formed in 6000 years.

    So this aya, about the creation of the heavens and the earth, does not speak about the entire universe, but about the solar system: the planets including the earth in addition to the moons.

    That previous sun was transformed into an earth with a cold crust within 2000 years, then within the next 4000 years the mountains landed on the earth, the crust increased in thickness and in addition to that the provision for the inhabitants of this earth was prepared and decreed.

    Also the gaseous heavens or the gaseous layers which are above the region of the cloud – these gaseous layers were separated distinctly from each other in 2000 years. This followed its initial state of smoke.

    This is in the aya 41: 9-12
    قُلْ أَئِنَّكُمْ لَتَكْفُرُونَ بِالَّذِي خَلَقَ الْأَرْضَ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ وَتَجْعَلُونَ لَهُ أَندَادًا ذَلِكَ رَبُّ الْعَالَمِينَ . وَجَعَلَ فِيهَا رَوَاسِيَ مِن فَوْقِهَا وَبَارَكَ فِيهَا وَقَدَّرَ فِيهَا أَقْوَاتَهَا فِي أَرْبَعَةِ أَيَّامٍ سَوَاء لِّلسَّائِلِينَ . ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى إِلَى السَّمَاء وَهِيَ دُخَانٌ فَقَالَ لَهَا وَلِلْأَرْضِ اِئْتِيَا طَوْعًا أَوْ كَرْهًا قَالَتَا أَتَيْنَا طَائِعِينَ . فَقَضَاهُنَّ سَبْعَ سَمَاوَاتٍ فِي يَوْمَيْنِ...
    The explanation: ( [O Mohammed] say [to the idolaters]: “Do you, then, disbelieve in [God] Who created the earth in two days, and do you ascribe to Him opponents? –That is the Lord of [all] the worlds!”

    “And He made [mountains] that landed upon it, blessed it, and apportioned therein its sustenance in four days; alike for those who ask [provision.]”

    “Then He tended to [build] the sky and it had been smoke; He said to it and to the earth, ‘Come, both of you, willingly or loath.’ The two said, ‘We [all] have come obedient.’

    “And He separated them into seven firmaments in two days …etc.”
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...n_of_the_Earth


    By the way, i've already explained to you that "sky" may mean the first heaven, that's to say the the sky nearer to the earth.

    God – be glorified – said in the Quran 41: 12
    وَزَيَّنَّا السَّمَاء الدُّنْيَا بِمَصَابِيحَ وَحِفْظًا ذَلِكَ تَقْدِيرُ الْعَزِيزِ الْعَلِيمِ
    The explanation:
    (And We adorned the nearest firmament [to your earth] with [meteors to be as] lamps and [for] protection;

    such [perfection] is the ordaining of the All-Mighty, the All-Knowing.)


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    I asked you a question, and I am waiting your answer: Who is the one that sought fire in the aya 2: 17

    And I said consult the commentation of Ibn Katheir and Ibn Abbas and all other commentators: and I am waiting you to tell us who is this one; and if in case you do not reach to this; also tell us honestly.

    And I shall answer your objections by God's will.
    This verse is a parable. 'Fire' , or rather the light it emits, symbolises the faith, the guidance, safety.

    And 'darkness' means here the misguidance.

    This verse, according to its context, refers to hypocrites and disbelievers.





    Ibn Kathir:
    http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=1110

    Al Jalalayn:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMad...rofile=0<br />

    Ibn Abbas:
    http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMad...rofile=0<br />

    This is not the answer to my question; I know it is a parable; but the question is:
    Who is the one that sought fire? ; that is because you said these commentators knew a lot; yes, they did know a lot; but in case they know all the Quran, then answer this question; and if you do not get the answer, also say: these commentories do not give the answer about: Who is the one that sought fire? in the aya 2: 17
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Oh no, creationists apparently are not only among the christian fundamentalists. There are muslim creationists as well? Tell me, what do you do, when the very facts clearly oppose your interpretations? Where is your humility? How can you think that you are better than your fellow believers who do not share your opinions? Why do you think that you are wiser than they are?
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    We said "the heavens and the earth" means the planets and the earth: where the heavens are of the same kind as the earth and the two words are joined by the word "and".




    10.101. Say: "Contemplate what the heavens and the earth contain!" [...]

    =>Oh! comtemplate what the planets contains? We will see that...


    45.3. Verily, there are, in the heavens and the earth, signs for people who believe.



    What are those signs which are in the heavens?


    The answer is in this verse:

    16.12 . And he hath constrained the night and the day and the sun and the moon to be of service unto you , and the stars are made subservient by His command . Lo! herein indeed are signs for people who have sense.


    Signs which are on planets are sun, moon and stars? No, verily, there are signs in the heavens.

    Therefore, "heavens" doesn't mean planets in the Quran, even in verses where it's said "the heavens and the earth".




    "All that is between them" are the moons and the meteorites; because they are situated between the planets including the earth.
    Nope! As the latter verses I quoted indicate, moon is IN the heavens, not between them and the earth. Plus, you bring no evidences of that interpretation.



    And all the planets and the earth and all that is between them of moons are created or formed in 6 days of the days of the Hereafter: every day equals 6000 of our years.
    Therefore, the planets and the earth and the moons were formed in 6000 years.

    So this aya, about the creation of the heavens and the earth, does not speak about the entire universe, but about the solar system: the planets including the earth in addition to the moons.
    First, any astronomers would tell you that the formation of the solar system lasted MORE than 6,000 years


    Plus, the Universe according to the Quran are the 7 heavens (ie, the heavens), the earth and what's between them both, (and aslo Paradises and Hells). Nothing else!



    That previous sun was transformed into an earth with a cold crust within 2000 years, then within the next 4000 years the mountains landed on the earth, the crust increased in thickness and in addition to that the provision for the inhabitants of this earth was prepared and decreed.
    What you say here is wrong! the Sun never transformed into Earth.
    The early Earth was certainly hot, but that wasn't due to nuclear process inside our planet but mainly due to collision with meteorites.


    Again, all those stages (ie, the colding of the crust, the creation of mountains, and the provision for dwellers) last much more than millions of years, no 6,000 yrs ONLY!

    Again, didn't I show that there are no fallen mountains?
    Mountains, on earth, are mainly due to volanic activity, and tectonic process (at faulting and convergence boundaries).

    What you said is, however, valid on planets such as Mercury. in that planet, meteorite impacts created "mountain barrier". They are still there because, since that planet has no atmopshere nor water, they aren't eroded.

    This is not the answer to my question; I know it is a parable; but the question is:
    Who is the one that sought fire? ; that is because you said these commentators knew a lot; yes, they did know a lot; but in case they know all the Quran, then answer this question; and if you do not get the answer, also say: these commentories do not give the answer about: Who is the one that sought fire? in the aya 2: 17
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)

    The one who sought fire may be anybody, because this is a parable. It shouldn't be interpreted literally: indeed, Allah doesn't say that he really took away the fire of a person.

    Parables aren't so specific. It's as if you ask me to give Ibn Kathir's opinions on the exact name of the star the Quran deals with in the parable of the Light of Allah.





    Also the gaseous heavens or the gaseous layers which are above the region of the cloud – these gaseous layers were separated distinctly from each other in 2000 years. This followed its initial state of smoke.

    Again, I wonder where you get this wrong idea: there are not troposphere then gaseous layers. All the atmosphere is gaseous layers, the troposphere is a gaseous layer which is among it.
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This is not the answer to my question; I know it is a parable; but the question is:
    Who is the one that sought fire? ; that is because you said these commentators knew a lot; yes, they did know a lot; but in case they know all the Quran, then answer this question; and if you do not get the answer, also say: these commentories do not give the answer about: Who is the one that sought fire? in the aya 2: 17
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)

    The one who sought fire may be anybody, because this is a parable. It shouldn't be interpreted literally: indeed, Allah doesn't say that he really took away the fire of a person.

    Parables aren't so specific. It's as if you ask me to give Ibn Kathir's opinions on the exact name of the star the Quran deals with in the parable of the Light of Allah.

    This is not correct; because God is Truthful, and will not say imaginary things; but He did not give the name of that one who sought fire;

    because this is a challenge to all people to solve this puzzle and know who is this one; this is like many other challenges in the Glorious Quran; because they said Mohammed invented the Quran, and He challenged them to bring about some ayat like the Quran, or to solve some of its puzzles but they were unable to do either of these two commands.

    And on the contrary the parables are so specific; and the Quran is a concize book, while its meaning and implication is very deep and extensive.

    The answer
    (according to the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly):
    That one is Prophet Moses, who went to bring fire to his family when he was in the wilderness of Sinai, and saw an olive tree giving light but yet not burning, when God - be glorified - spoke to him and made him an apostle.

    The implication of this parable: God says to His apostle Mohammed: The likeness of the hypocrites among your people toward you, Mohammed, is like the act of the hypocrites among the Children of Israel toward their Prophet Moses.
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    This is not correct; because God is Truthful, and will not say imaginary things; but He did not give the name of that one who sought fire;
    he didn't give the name of the star in the parable of the Light of Allah either.
    So, thta's not truthful nor untruthful. This is imaginary because it's a parable.


    because this is a challenge to all people to solve this puzzle and know who is this one; this is like many other challenges in the Glorious Quran; because they said Mohammed invented the Quran, and He challenged them to bring about some ayat like the Quran, or to solve some of its puzzles but they were unable to do either of these two commands.
    Apparently, your interpreter "suceeded" this puzzle-challenge.





    The answer
    (according to the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly):
    That one is Prophet Moses, who went to bring fire to his family when he was in the wilderness of Sinai, and saw an olive tree giving light but yet not burning, when God - be glorified - spoke to him and made him an apostle.
    Err.. if you read the rest of the verse, the one who looked for fire was then misguided because it's stated that his light was taken by Allah in order that the one who looked for fire will be in darkness [ie, to leave him in misguidance].




    Now, i'd like to come back to the subject of this topic: mountains. And about them, you must give scientific sources for your assertion.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This is not correct; because God is Truthful, and will not say imaginary things; but He did not give the name of that one who sought fire;
    he didn't give the name of the star in the parable of the Light of Allah either.
    So, thta's not truthful nor untruthful. This is imaginary because it's a parable.

    About what are you talking?
    There is no star here; it means the glass is so transparent.

    The answer
    (according to the late interpreter Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly):
    That one is Prophet Moses, who went to bring fire to his family when he was in the wilderness of Sinai, and saw an olive tree giving light but yet not burning, when God - be glorified - spoke to him and made him an apostle.
    Err.. if you read the rest of the verse, the one who looked for fire was then misguided because it's stated that his light was taken by Allah in order that the one who looked for fire will be in darkness [ie, to leave him in misguidance].
    [/quote]


    No, it is not. Read the rest of the aya very well:
    The aya 2: 17 says:
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and when it shed light around [b]him[/b], God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    About what are you talking?
    About whether the one who sought fire were imaginary or not.



    No, it is not. Read the rest of the aya very well:
    The aya 2: 17 says:
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and whenit shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)
    First, the verb 'sought' in these verse may be translated as 'to kindle'.

    Ths is said that when the one who sought fire kindle the fire , Allah took the light of the fire away; rather he light off the fire. So, I don't think that God took away the light [ie, misguided] of Musa when he saw the light [ie, guided]!



    Allah likened the hypocrites when they bought deviation with guidance, thus acquiring utter blindness, to the example of a person who started a fire. When the fire was lit, and illumnitated the surrounding area, the person benefited from it and felt safe. Then the fire was suddenly extinguished. Therefore, total darkness covered this person, and he became unable to see anything or find his way out of it.



    But we 'deviated' from the subject: what's your new arguments for the alleged stabilizing role of mountains?
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    About what are you talking?
    About whether the one who sought fire were imaginary or not.



    No, it is not. Read the rest of the aya very well:
    The aya 2: 17 says:
    مَثَلُهُمْ كَمَثَلِ الَّذِي اسْتَوْقَدَ نَاراً فَلَمَّا أَضَاءتْ مَا حَوْلَهُ ذَهَبَ اللّهُ بِنُورِهِمْ وَتَرَكَهُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتٍ لاَّ يُبْصِرُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Their likeness is as the likeness [of the folk] of one who sought fire; and whenit shed light around him, God took away their light and left them in darkness, so that they were not able to see.)
    First, the verb 'sought' in these verse may be translated as 'to kindle'.

    Ths is said that when the one who sought fire kindle the fire , Allah took the light of the fire away; rather he light off the fire. So, I don't think that God took away the light [ie, misguided] of Musa when he saw the light [ie, guided]!



    Allah likened the hypocrites when they bought deviation with guidance, thus acquiring utter blindness, to the example of a person who started a fire. When the fire was lit, and illumnitated the surrounding area, the person benefited from it and felt safe. Then the fire was suddenly extinguished. Therefore, total darkness covered this person, and he became unable to see anything or find his way out of it.

    This is not correct; the word استوقد in the aya means "he sought fire": he went to bring fire, and is other than the Arabic word أوقد which means : "he kindled fire" or started fire.
    Then God went away with their light not with his light.
    As in the aya: 61: 5 about the hypocrites among the Children of Israel
    وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And [mention to them] when Moses said to his people: "My people, why do you hurt me when you well know that I am God's messenger to you?" So when they deviated [from piety], God let their hearts deviate [from the truth]; [for] God loves not the ungodly people.)

    You may return to the topic of the mountains cast by God on the earth, and they heavily landed and became firmly fixed and erected upon the earth.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    This is not correct; the word استوقد in the aya means "he sought fire": he went to bring fire, and is other than the Arabic word أوقد which means : "he kindled fire" or started fire.
    Then God went away with their light not with his light.
    As in the aya: 61: 5 about the hypocrites among the Children of Israel
    وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And [mention to them] when Moses said to his people: "My people, why do you hurt me when you well know that I am God's messenger to you?" So when they deviated [from piety], God let their hearts deviate [from the truth]; [for] God loves not the ungodly people.)

    Then God went away with their light not with his light.
    When the fire emits light on the person who sought fire => God took away their light.

    We can clearly see the link between the "light of the fire" and "their light". they are linkened by a condition (when). That's meaningless with your interpretation, so, they are the SAME lights.






    You may return to the topic of the mountains cast by God on the earth, and they heavily landed and became firmly fixed and erected upon the earth.

    No mountains landed. During the early stage of Earth's formation, many meteorites collide with the surface because of the absence of protective atmosphere and the fact that asteroids (mainly protoplanets) were numerous at that moment.

    So, no "mountains" existed at that moment. They begin to be form latter.


    And if you keep on thinking that most of mountains are particullary extraterrestrial, well consider that the entire Earth is also extraterrestrial. Indeed its formation consisted in collision of "extraterrestrial" bodies (accretion).

    Thus, saying that most of mountains are extraterrestrial implies that mountains themselves (not meteorites!) fell onto the Earth, which is scientifically wrong of course.


    Plus, your assertion is far from credible: you aren't capable of giving the name of any of these fallen mountains (which are, although, the most of mountains on our planet, to your opinion!), whereas you (and anyone) can give the name of any other (type of) mountains, Tectonic process: Himalaya, Alps, Andes, Urals
    Volcanoes: Mt.Stromboli, Etna, ect...
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    This is not correct; the word استوقد in the aya means "he sought fire": he went to bring fire, and is other than the Arabic word أوقد which means : "he kindled fire" or started fire.
    Then God went away with their light not with his light.
    As in the aya: 61: 5 about the hypocrites among the Children of Israel
    وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ لِمَ تُؤْذُونَنِي وَقَد تَّعْلَمُونَ أَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ فَلَمَّا زَاغُوا أَزَاغَ اللَّهُ قُلُوبَهُمْ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الْفَاسِقِينَ
    The explanation:
    (And [mention to them] when Moses said to his people: "My people, why do you hurt me when you well know that I am God's messenger to you?" So when they deviated [from piety], God let their hearts deviate [from the truth]; [for] God loves not the ungodly people.)

    Then God went away with their light not with his light.
    When the fire emits light on the person who sought fire => God took away their light.

    We can clearly see the link between the "light of the fire" and "their light". they are linkened by a condition (when). That's meaningless with your interpretation, so, they are the SAME lights.

    You may return to the topic of the mountains cast by God on the earth, and they heavily landed and became firmly fixed and erected upon the earth.

    No mountains landed. During the early stage of Earth's formation, many meteorites collide with the surface because of the absence of protective atmosphere and the fact that asteroids (mainly protoplanets) were numerous at that moment.

    So, no "mountains" existed at that moment. They begin to be form latter.


    And if you keep on thinking that most of mountains are particullary extraterrestrial, well consider that the entire Earth is also extraterrestrial. Indeed its formation consisted in collision of "extraterrestrial" bodies (accretion).

    Thus, saying that most of mountains are extraterrestrial implies that mountains themselves (not meteorites!) fell onto the Earth, which is scientifically wrong of course.


    Plus, your assertion is far from credible: you aren't capable of giving the name of any of these fallen mountains (which are, although, the most of mountains on our planet, to your opinion!), whereas you (and anyone) can give the name of any other (type of) mountains, Tectonic process: Himalaya, Alps, Andes, Urals
    Volcanoes: Mt.Stromboli, Etna, ect...

    You are convinced with some personal ideas about "protoplanets", while it is not in the Quran;
    God said that He cast them on the earth, and you say "protoplanets".

    God says: "their light" and you say: no, it is his light.

    This is similar to their assumptions of many imaginary things as the collision with some plenets or meteorites; while this is only imaginary things like one who lies then believes his lies; while the Quran tells us the truth in clear words; then who does speak the pseudoscience I or they?

    The interpretation (according to the late interpreter of the Quran, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly):
    When Moses returned frim Sinai to Egypt, together with his family, he saw some light from faraway; he said to his family: Stay here; I shall bring you a torch of fire to warm yourselves and have light.

    When he came to where the fire; he saw the olive tree emit light, and yet did not burn, so he surprised, and God spoke to him.

    In fact the tree lighted the valley where Moses was standing and lighted on Moses the prophethood and on his people by guidance.

    But the hypocrites among his people deviated [from piety], God let their hearts deviate [from the truth].

    This is the likeness of the hypocrites among Mohammed's people: they were like the hypocrites among Moses' people.

    There is no one that kindled fire, but sought fire; and he was not misguided, but the hypocrites among his people that were misguided.

    And there is no meaning that one kindled fire then God extinguished it for him; but He said God took away their light.

    About mountains:
    The meteorites fell and became mountains.

    And because they had not such idea as the mountains origin from meteorites that fell and became the mountains; they classified the mounains present on Earth according to their understanding.

    While we said the mountains are two kinds : the old that came as meteorites then landed on the earth; and the new mountains that are due to many geological factors.
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What's with all the mythology in a science forum?
    It is not mythology; examine the idea and discuss it scientifically instead of taking some presumptive attitude.
    Oh eanassir, now you are just wishful thinking!

    Don't you know the science forum is the place where presumption and speculation breeds!
    After all we are here to debate, argue, discuss and put forward all the possibilities to a case we might be able to think of providing an answer and get closer to the truth.

    BUT only if your ideas fit in with the world view of it's members and the dogma of science doesn't like myth or the capabilities of the human imagination to grasp and explain the ideas it's instruments can't.
    No, speculations must fit neatly into its speculum or be able to be seen in a microscope and be able to be measured in an equation.

    Which is why science is painfully slow. It exists in a vacuum flask tottering precariously on a pyramid of theories.

    A real scientist knows this fact and will accomodate all the possibilities because they are explorers and are not afraid to look at unknown terrain.

    A lay scientist on the other hand has the tendency to be viciously dogmatic and narrow minded in it's outlook, because they have something else, more personal to prove, other than science.

    It's not a mythological idea that mountains might possibly be meteorites or fallen fragments of planets.
    It is not a ridiculous idea that falling meteorites would have affected the earths landscape.
    There is real evidence of large meteorites hitting the planet regularly. A large enough meteorite could cause a range of mountains about the perimeter its bowl.
    It has even been considered to be a possibility that the beginnings life on our planet might have come from fallen meteorites.
    Of course you also have to consider the consequences of the Earths axis and position in it's orbit if a huge meteorite hit the planet.
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Er, eanassir is arguing that most of today's mountains are hunks of rock fallen from the sky.

    Technically yeah everything is "from space" but I'm pretty sure eanassir means the mountains we see are not recycled but rather eroded hunks of meteor.
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Er, eanassir is arguing that most of today's mountains are hunks of rock fallen from the sky.

    Technically yeah everything is "from space" but I'm pretty sure eanassir means the mountains we see are not recycled but rather eroded hunks of meteor.
    Yes we know what is being said Pong

    but is that a ridiculous assertion?
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    What's with all the mythology in a science forum?
    It is not mythology; examine the idea and discuss it scientifically instead of taking some presumptive attitude.
    Oh eanassir, now you are just wishful thinking!

    Don't you know the science forum is the place where presumption and speculation breeds!
    After all we are here to debate, argue, discuss and put forward all the possibilities to a case we might be able to think of providing an answer and get closer to the truth.

    BUT only if your ideas fit in with the world view of it's members and the dogma of science doesn't like myth or the capabilities of the human imagination to grasp and explain the ideas it's instruments can't.
    No, speculations must fit neatly into its speculum or be able to be seen in a microscope and be able to be measured in an equation.

    Which is why science is painfully slow. It exists in a vacuum flask tottering precariously on a pyramid of theories.

    A real scientist knows this fact and will accomodate all the possibilities because they are explorers and are not afraid to look at unknown terrain.

    A lay scientist on the other hand has the tendency to be viciously dogmatic and narrow minded in it's outlook, because they have something else, more personal to prove, other than science.

    It's not a mythological idea that mountains might possibly be meteorites or fallen fragments of planets.
    It is not a ridiculous idea that falling meteorites would have affected the earths landscape.
    There is real evidence of large meteorites hitting the planet regularly. A large enough meteorite could cause a range of mountains about the perimeter its bowl.
    It has even been considered to be a possibility that the beginnings life on our planet might have come from fallen meteorites.
    Of course you also have to consider the consequences of the Earths axis and position in it's orbit if a huge meteorite hit the planet.


    If we imagine the earth has broken up into a large number of pieces: some pieces are large and others small (as it will do on Doomsday, and as had the planet of the Asteroids broken up; which had been situated between Mars and Jupiter); then the pieces of the broken up earth will roam about in the space.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Asteroids
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/index.htm#[_The_Mistake_of_Astronomers_about_the_Asteroids_1]

    And when there appear some other planets in the vicinity, such pieces will be attracted by the gravity of those planets to fall upon them.

    So this is what happened to the past planets (whose pieces are still falling every now and then on our Earth and the rest of our planets).

    The pieces of our broken up Earth will bear the seed of life to the future newly formed planets (such planets will result from the breaking up of the present Sun into 19 pieces: the next solar system will have a larger sun and more numerous planets: 19 in number.)
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible

    The earth at its early development had a thin crust which might not be so hard yet,
    The angle of fall of such pieces, the speed of both the Earth and such falling pieces, and the direction of movement of both the Earth and the falling portions may assist in their resting on Earth with some way or another.

    Moreover, some fossils and skeletons of some animals like dinosaurs might have come embedded in these meteorites, when such animals might have lived on the old destroyed planets.

    This is what I understood, which I am displaying to scientists and those that study science to discuss it, which I do not impose on others or oblige them to accept.

    Moreover, why not when some scientific idea is found in the Glorious Quran which includes a large number of things pertaining to science, and in fact is superior to the science of this century and the following centuries; as do I believe in the Torah and the Gospel also revealed from God – be glorified.



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87

    You are convinced with some personal ideas about "protoplanets", while it is not in the Quran;
    God said that He cast them on the earth, and you say "protoplanets".

    God says: "their light" and you say: no, it is his light.

    This is similar to their assumptions of many imaginary things as the collision with some plenets or meteorites; while this is only imaginary things like one who lies then believes his lies; while the Quran tells us the truth in clear words; then who does speak the pseudoscience I or they?

    The interpretation (according to the late interpreter of the Quran, Mohammed-Ali Hassan Al-Hilly):
    When Moses returned frim Sinai to Egypt, together with his family, he saw some light from faraway; he said to his family: Stay here; I shall bring you a torch of fire to warm yourselves and have light.

    When he came to where the fire; he saw the olive tree emit light, and yet did not burn, so he surprised, and God spoke to him.

    In fact the tree lighted the valley where Moses was standing and lighted on Moses the prophethood and on his people by guidance.

    But the hypocrites among his people deviated [from piety], God let their hearts deviate [from the truth].

    This is the likeness of the hypocrites among Mohammed's people: they were like the hypocrites among Moses' people.

    There is no one that kindled fire, but sought fire; and he was not misguided, but the hypocrites among his people that were misguided.

    And there is no meaning that one kindled fire then God extinguished it for him; but He said God took away their light.

    First, musa weren't the one who sought fire, because the Quran state that likness of them (the hypocrites) is like the likness of the one who sought fire.



    You are convinced with some personal ideas about "protoplanets", while it is not in the Quran;
    God said that He cast them on the earth, and you say "protoplanets".


    They aren't really personal ideas. The Earth was mainly formed due to accretion. Accretion of what? mainly protoplanets.

    You think that your myth of transformation of sun into earth is better than my "personal" ideas?


    About mountains:
    The meteorites fell and became mountains.
    of course! And in my town, the rain that fell became house...
    You would be credible if you quoted the name of those mountains.



    And because they had not such idea as the mountains origin from meteorites that fell and became the mountains; they classified the mounains present on Earth according to their understanding.

    In other words, you are true and scientists didn't reach your truth ...
    To you, those fallen mountains are different from mountains originate from Earth?yes?

    then, where can we find them? What are their names?
    These 2 questions aren't difficult if you are sure of what you claim.

    But since you're aren't able to do so, then consider you made nothing but pseudoscience.


    While we said the mountains are two kinds : the old that came as meteorites then landed on the earth; and the new mountains that are due to many geological factors.
    Again in my town, houses are also 2 types, the one who were built by humans, the other that litterally fell from the sky (with windows, doors,ect...) ...
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Er, eanassir is arguing that most of today's mountains are hunks of rock fallen from the sky.

    Technically yeah everything is "from space" but I'm pretty sure eanassir means the mountains we see are not recycled but rather eroded hunks of meteor.

    As I said in a past reply the mountains are two kinds:
    1. The newly formed mountains; due to various geological factors.
    2. The meteories and pieces of the destroyed planets that fell on the Earth in the past.

    The erosion and new formation of mountains cannot be denied. In the Quran, such new mountains are called جدد i.e. newly formed.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
     

  83. #82 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, ...
    In order to support your claim, how would you be able to distinguish between the two species of mountains using empirical measurements? What are the facts that back it up?

    The newly formed mountains may easily be recognized like those resulting from vocanoes for example. These newly formed mountains are three kinds.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains

    To distinguish the old mountains, which had not been formed on earth but came from the outer space, being the pieces of some destroyed planets in the past; such mountains may be recognized by estimating their age in comparison to the surrounding earth: if they are older by this age estimation method, then they are older than the earth itself, and are not newly-formed.
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    Er, eanassir is arguing that most of today's mountains are hunks of rock fallen from the sky.

    Technically yeah everything is "from space" but I'm pretty sure eanassir means the mountains we see are not recycled but rather eroded hunks of meteor.
    The mountains eanassir talk about are different from any mountains everybody knows. None of those mountains, according to him, were formed by plate movement or magma activity.

    And yet, in spite of erosion, those fallen mountains are still there ...

    i think that those mountains do exist! But they are invisible.




    The newly formed mountains may easily be recognized like those resulting from vocanoes for example.

    To distinguish the old mountains, which had not been formed on earth but came from the outer space, being the pieces of some destroyed planets in the past; such mountains may be recognized by estimating their age in comparison to the surrounding earth: if they are older by this age estimation method, then they are older than the earth itself, and are not newly-formed.

    Here you're ONLY giving a method to estimate the age of those fallen mountains. This is not a proof. As evidences, you should bring scientific articles about geologists making those estimations on those fallen mountains.

    But those mountains must exist to estimate their age ....
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    I got lost at the Quran bit

    God made the mountains right? Like he made the birds and trees and man out of a lump of mud? And maybe he threw rocks at us mud critters and that's what made the mountains?

    Right, so who made magic mushrooms illegal?
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I got lost at the Quran bit

    God made the mountains right? Like he made the birds and trees and man out of a lump of mud? And maybe he threw rocks at us mud critters and that's what made the mountains?

    Right, so who made magic mushrooms illegal?
    If you get lost at the Quran, you will go astray and will not find the correct way; because the Glorious Quran is the recent word of God, which came as a correction and confiemation of the previous Torah and Gospel.

    This is in the Quran7: 185
    أَوَلَمْ يَنظُرُواْ فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنْ عَسَى أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Have they not considered the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and what things God has created, and it may be their term is already drawing nigh; in what relation, after this [Quran], then will they believe?)

    It means: There will not be any heavenly book after the Quran to believe in it.

    The advantage of casting the mountains on the earth:
    1- To stabilize the movement of the earth and make it more steady and regular.
    2- To make the earth tilt on an axis inclination of about 23 degrees, so that seasons have been formed.
    3- To carry the seed of life to Earth and the rest of the planets, in the form of seeds, branches of trees, animal and man decayed corpses and some microbes: bacteria, fungus …etc all that embedded inside those meteorites that became the mountains.
    4- To act as (the pegs of the tent): to fix the crust of the earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...son_Meteorite_



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The mountains eanassir talk about are different from any mountains everybody knows. None of those mountains, according to him, were formed by plate movement or magma activity.

    I said there are the newly formed mountains and they are three kinds
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains


    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    The newly formed mountains may easily be recognized like those resulting from vocanoes for example.

    To distinguish the old mountains, which had not been formed on earth but came from the outer space, being the pieces of some destroyed planets in the past; such mountains may be recognized by estimating their age in comparison to the surrounding earth: if they are older by this age estimation method, then they are older than the earth itself, and are not newly-formed.
    Here you're ONLY giving a method to estimate the age of those fallen mountains. This is not a proof.
    This method will prove for researchers and scientists that these mountains had not been formed on this Earth.
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I got lost at the Quran bit

    God made the mountains right? Like he made the birds and trees and man out of a lump of mud? And maybe he threw rocks at us mud critters and that's what made the mountains?

    Right, so who made magic mushrooms illegal?
    If you get lost at the Quran, will go astray and will not find the correct way; because the Glorious Quran is the recent word of God, which came as a correction and confiemation of the previous Torah and Gospel.

    This is in the Quran7: 185
    أَوَلَمْ يَنظُرُواْ فِي مَلَكُوتِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ وَمَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ مِن شَيْءٍ وَأَنْ عَسَى أَن يَكُونَ قَدِ اقْتَرَبَ أَجَلُهُمْ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَهُ يُؤْمِنُونَ
    The explanation:
    (Have they not considered the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and what things God has created, and it may be their term is already drawing nigh; in what relation, after this [Quran], then will they believe?)

    It means: There will not be any heavenly book after the Quran to believe in it.

    The advantage of casting the mountains on the earth:
    1- To stabilize the movement of the earth and make it more steady and regular.
    2- To make the earth tilt on an axis inclination of about 23 degrees, so that seasons have been formed.
    3- To carry the seed of life to Earth and the rest of the planets, in the form of seeds, branches of trees, animal and man decayed corpses and some microbes: bacteria, fungus …etc all that embedded inside those meteorites that became the mountains.
    4- To act as (the pegs of the tent): to fix the crust of the earth.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_..._Transmissible
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_...son_Meteorite_



    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
    I have read the Quran and what a great book!

    I have read the Bible and what a great book that is too!

    I have read the Baghavad Gita, and what a great read that was!

    I have read the Tau Teh Ching and wow what can I say!

    I have read the Vedas and they are very encouraging!

    I have read the Guru Granth Sahib and what wonderful poetry!


    These ancients were very good at putting epic tales together weren't they, and how clever to weave morals and lessons to help us peeps to understand the universe and ourselves better!

    Shame that most of them then go and spoil the amazing literature by ignorantly claiming that their books are right and brutally attacking that all the rest are wrong.

    Can you not see that God intended each and every one of us to make up our own stories.

    The above are just an example.

    Gods message didn't stop with the ancients, it's still going on now and it will go on and on while man still stands on this planet.

    So I'm afraid the Quran will not be the last book about God, it will only be one of many.

    If man was to stop making stories, myths and explanations about life and God then man may as well come to a stagnant stop and fester in a rotten heap of nothingness.

    You insult God by saying something is Gospel and is the final word of God and there can be no more.

    What utter rubbish.

    You story about the mountains could initially have been valid, then you go and ruin the discussion by bringing in the Quran and worse still claiming it is the ultimate word of God.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    I said there are the newly formed mountains and they are four kinds
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/new_....htm#Mountains
    Nonsense! You're contradicting yourself. newly-formed aren't fallen mountains to you. you said that mountains on earth are mainly 2 types:

    *newly-formed: volcanoes, continental-collision mountains.

    *old mountains: due to meteorites.



    This method will prove for researchers and scientists that these mountains had not been formed on this Earth.
    Anyway, recent researches tend to prove that most of mountains are from tectonic and magma activity. So, you theory is totally useless without proofs. Which makes your theory even more non-credible is the fact that you aren't able to give examples for such mountains (names, locations). Your theory is thus your own opinion, and you seem to be convinced by that opinion...




    2- To make the earth tilt on an axis inclination of about 23 degrees, so that seasons have been formed.
    Meteorites collision may indeed provoke such inclination.

    1- To stabilize the movement of the earth and make it more steady and regular.
    Totally baseless. And i've already given an answer to that.



    4- To act as (the pegs of the tent): to fix the crust of the earth.
    The earth's crust isn't fixed. it drifts and shakes and may even have vertical movements.

    You told me that mountains impede the dirfiting of the crust.

    => First, 'impede' and 'fix' are different in sense.
    => The main factor that may 'impede' this drifting is plate-collisions themsevles, not mountains.
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Absum!
    I have read the Quran and what a great book!

    I have read the Bible and what a great book that is too!

    I have read the Baghavad Gita, and what a great read that was!

    I have read the Tau Teh Ching and wow what can I say!

    I have read the Vedas and they are very encouraging!

    I have read the Guru Granth Sahib and what wonderful poetry!


    These ancients were very good at putting epic tales together weren't they, and how clever to weave morals and lessons to help us peeps to understand the universe and ourselves better!

    Shame that most of them then go and spoil the amazing literature by ignorantly claiming that their books are right and brutally attacking that all the rest are wrong.

    Can you not see that God intended each and every one of us to make up our own stories.

    The above are just an example.

    Gods message didn't stop with the ancients, it's still going on now and it will go on and on while man still stands on this planet.

    So I'm afraid the Quran will not be the last book about God, it will only be one of many.

    If man was to stop making stories, myths and explanations about life and God then man may as well come to a stagnant stop and fester in a rotten heap of nothingness.

    You insult God by saying something is Gospel and is the final word of God and there can be no more.

    What utter rubbish.

    You story about the mountains could initially have been valid, then you go and ruin the discussion by bringing in the Quran and worse still claiming it is the ultimate word of God.

    God – be glorified – sent to every nation an apostle (or more): to tell them that God is only One without associate and to warn them of their idolatry and association which would lead them to punishment in their afterlife, and that they would have prosperity in case they keep up on the monotheism.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...st_Commandment

    This is in the Quran 16: 36
    وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولاً أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُواْ الطَّاغُوتَ
    The explanation:
    (We did send into every nation an apostle [proclaiming]: "[O people] serve God [alone], and avoid [following] the arrogant.")

    Then the succession of years and generations will cause many alterations and changes in the monotheistic message of the apostle of that nation; when people will fall into the idolatry and associating their apostle, his family members and the righteous men.

    And then the message and the books will be altered to reach us in some distorted way; and this is why there are many ways and doctrines of the association with God and idolatry: it is because of the political leaders and the treacherous religious leaders who will exploit the religion to their personal advantage; and so they will encourage this polytheism and association with God.

    While the religion of God is only one: the monotheism: that God is only One without
    any associate or patron. Whereas according to the inherited traditions there will be so many doctrines of such idolatry, association and polytheism.
    http://universeandquran.t35.com/inde...st_Commandment

    Satan will deceive the religious leader: in whom people do trust, and people will follow this religious leader and he will lead them to be enthusiastic about their apostle: that he is god or son of god …etc.

    God revealed the Torah to Moses in Hebrew and the Gospel to Jesus in Aramaic; then these were translated to various languages.

    The present Torah is not the original Torah revealed to Moses; but it is the Torah written by the priest Ezra, to the Children of Israel following their return from the captivity of Babylon; he distorted many thing, added and delteted many things while many books that were originally included in the original Torah have been lost by time. What we see now, included in the Old Testament, is the translation of some Latin intermediary source: a translation of the Torah of Ezra who rewrote the Torah.
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#The_Torah_[or_Hebrew_Bible]_of_Ezra_
    http://quranandhebrewbible.t35.com/#...k%20of%20bible

    The Gospel is not one gospel: it is four selected out of a large number that were discarded; the present 4 Gospels are the translation of a Latin intermediary source; the original Aramaic source had been lost by time.

    The Quran is a concise book that can be known by heart by a large number of people; there will be no other heavenly book after the Glorious Quran: because it has been preserved as it is in Arabic (This is why I mention the Arabic text, then give the translation of the meaning in English; because the English words are not the Quran; but only the translation of the meaning; the Quran is in Arabic.)

    If should there be any new revelation: it will only be the interpretation of the ambiguous ayat of the Quran; because the Quran includes a large number of such ambiguous (: Mutashabihat) ayat, which none other than God knows their meaning and implication and will be explained in the future.

    Therefore, the Quran is incomparable to any other present book; the Quran is the last heavenly book and it is to be followed, and there is no way to compare it to any other book even though all these in origin were revealed by God Himself.


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

  91. #90  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    807
    I think I'll stick with the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

    http://www.venganza.org/

    They seem to have the right idea about religion and God

    In fact I can hear God chuckling to herself right now...
     

  92. #91  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    About mountains:
    The meteorites fell and became mountains.
    of course! And in my town, the rain that fell became house...
    That's true, since rain becomes lumber and concrete. Every part of Earth is made of matter that fell to Earth. All ostriches fell to earth from space, every bit of them, though they were in the form of sand and ice then. So the Koran is right about mountains, perhaps inadvertently.

    The trouble comes of thinking anything could be otherwise. Then we get an old set and a new set. When in fact everything is older than Earth, recycled infinite times. Now Eanassir is yanking straight talk from his Book, and bending it to his shallow mortal view, and we are helping by insisting everything but Earth itself is new. As if Allah did not cause mountains cast down, to also form with those mountains bicycles and windy days and whatnot.
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by termina
    About mountains:
    The meteorites fell and became mountains.
    of course! And in my town, the rain that fell became house...
    That's true, since rain becomes lumber and concrete. Every part of Earth is made of matter that fell to Earth. All ostriches fell to earth from space, every bit of them, though they were in the form of sand and ice then. So the Koran is right about mountains, perhaps inadvertently.

    See this 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 explanation:
    >> (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 because they came to the earth from the space.

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


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    and gardens of vines
    If you can see those vines grew from of what was once meteors, then you're reconciled to science.
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    and gardens of vines
    If you can see those vines grew from of what was once meteors, then you're reconciled to science.

    Pong,
    Life in origin came embedded in the meteorites in the form of seeds of plants, branches of trees, bacteria and fungus, decayed corpses of man and animal; then when the condition became proper for life appearance and rain fell down on such seed of life, they started to grow into trees and various plants, and God - be glorified - created (out of the organic substance of the decayed corpses of man and animal) various kinds of species: a male and female of every species and all these started to reproduce until they filled the whole earth.

    Therefore, the gardens of vines is from mountains in origin, as have you brought my attention to this link between the mountains and the plant of the vines: which here in fact means the fruits in general and not only the vines in particular.

    By the way, in another aya of the Quran 20: 23 the olive tree origin was from the mountain Hor in Sinai:
    وَشَجَرَةً تَخْرُجُ مِن طُورِ سَيْنَاء تَنبُتُ بِالدُّهْنِ وَصِبْغٍ لِّلْآكِلِينَ
    The explanation:
    (Also [We produced for you by means of the rain water] a tree issuing from the Mount of Sinai, which plants in holes, and as an oil ingredient for eaters.)

    The interpretation:
    The olive tree was originally created and grew on the Mount Hor in the wilderness of Sinai, then it reproduced in the nearby valley, then its seeds scattered in the holes: in the valleys nearby by winds, and by means of rainwater these seeds started to grow into trees and by this way this tree [like other trees] grow and spread.
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    87
    See this 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 explanation:
    >> (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 because they came to the earth from the space.

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

    (There are, in the earth, pieces) means: they are not from the earth;
    Pieces on the earth? Pieces of what? It may be volcanic rocks, if I like.
    It may be pieces of "anything one wants". Because it's AMBIGUOUS!




    First, according to Ibn Kathir, it's:

    (And in the earth are neighboring tracts, ) Meaning, next to each other, some of them are fertile and produce what benefits people, while others are dead, salty and do not produce anything. This meaning was collected from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Ad-Dahhak and several others. This also covers the various colors and types of diverse areas on the earth; some red, some white, or yellow, or black, some are stony, or flat, or sandy, or thick, or thin, all made to neighbor each other while preserving their own qualities.



    Al jalalayn:
    And on the earth are tracts, diverse terrains, neighbouring each other, joined side by side, some good, some briny, some of little yield and some fruitful — and these constitute proofs of His power, exalted be He

    Ibn Abbas: (And in the Earth are neighbouring) adjacent (tracts) places: a bad, swampy land close to a good, fertile land,[...]



    => As you can see, none of these scholars mentionned meteorites, or something like this.



    But I know you won't accept their tafseers, so, let's admit their tafseers and you interpreter's are wrong:




    How can we find the meaning?
    let's try to find it thanks to the context. Here we go...


    013.004
    YUSUFALI: And in the earth are tracts (diverse though) neighbouring, and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Behold, verily in these things there are signs for those who understand!

    PICKTHAL: And in the Earth are neighbouring tracts, vineyards and ploughed lands, and date-palms, like and unlike, which are watered with one water. And we have made some of them to excel others in fruit. Lo! herein verily are portents for people who have sense.

    SHAKIR: And in the earth there are tracts side by side and gardens of grapes and corn and palm trees having one root and (others) having distinct roots-- they are watered with one water, and We make some of them excel others in fruit; most surely there are signs in this for a people who understand.

    I'm afraid; in the context of "and gardens of vines and fields sown with corn, and palm trees - growing out of single roots or otherwise: watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat." , interpreting 'neighbour tracts' as 'meteorites' isn't suitable, it would even make the verse weird.

    Apparently, the interpretation of these scholars are honeslty more logical according to the context.

    So, one can't interpret it as one wants, as if the part of this verse was isolated. Otherwise, there would be too many different interpretations. For instance, in an other forum, someone interpreted it as 'tectonic plates'...




    Your interpreter contradicts great scholars, and most Quran translators:
    in other word, compared to them, your interpreter carries no weight and is non-credible.





    * Obviously, your interpreter is a fellow concordist. He exaggerates on the tafseer of any verses to 'stick' them with modern science, regardless their context.
    Verily, it's very easy to do so. If everybody did like your interpreter, we would even find recent scientific theories in Noddy books ...
     

  97. #96  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    and gardens of vines
    If you can see those vines grew from of what was once meteors, then you're reconciled to science.

    Pong,
    Life in origin came embedded in the meteorites in the form of seeds of plants, branches of trees...
    Not what I meant. Listen, rain comes from the ocean. Originally that water came from meteors and planetoids. Even oceans on planetoids. But you won't find jellyfish or extraterrestrial oarlocks flowing down a river every time it rains. The water is the same water, yet it's new water. In the same sense, our mountains did come from meteors. Since then, they've mingled as magma, resurfaced and flowed again countless times. Like the water of a river. You could say God brings mountains down and God raises mountains up, like God makes the rivers. You would not say the water of a river must stand still because God caused the Earth to have rivers.
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Not what I meant....

    The meteoritic portions (of the destroyed planets) did not fall on the earth violently, but somewhat easily as indicated by the aya of the Quran 16: 15 where He said:
    وَأَلْقَى فِي الأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ
    The explanation: (And He cast [mountains] that landed on the earth; lest it should move irregularly with you.)

    In the aya, the Arabic word is وَأَلْقَى فِي exactly indicates "cast into", more than "cast on": which may suggest that the casting was moderate or easy.

    This casting occurred after elapsing of the first 2000 years required for the transformation (: creation) of the sun into an earth with some cold crust, then after that the meteoritic portions of the broken up planets started to fall on the Earth and the planets; which means that the crust of the earth was still not so hard, and might be more soft or elastic to absorb some impact or falling of some large masses specially if they come to land in some moderate way.

    Another aya where it indicates that such landing and setting of the mountains on the earth was moderate, is in the Quran 79: 32
    وَالْجِبَالَ أَرْسَاهَا
    The explanation:
    (And the mountains He did firmly set [on the earth].)

    [The Arabic word indicates the landing was moderate (such word is used for the ship when it lands easily at the sea shore), and because of the heavy weight of such meteoritic pieces, they were firmly fixed on the ground and has some root below the ground.]

    The interpretation:
    He fixed the mountains on the earth; He means by that the meteorites which fell in large numbers at the start, and they became the mountains.
    Then three other kinds of mountains were formed by some geological factors:
    1- Volcanoes, earthquakes and cleavages …etc.
    2- By the effect of erosion.
    3- From the contraction and breaking of the earth surface, so that the elongated mountain chains resulted.
    So in total these are the four kinds of mountains on Earth.


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


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

     

  99. #98 Re: Most of the mountains are not from Earth in origin. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster
    Quote Originally Posted by eanassir
    Those pieces and meteorites, that became the mountains, ...
    In order to support your claim, how would you be able to distinguish between the two species of mountains using empirical measurements? What are the facts that back it up?

    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


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    197
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Listen,...

    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.

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


    eanassir
    http://universeandquran.t35.com

     

  101. #100  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Thanks for your patience.

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

    I'm out of here.
     

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •