• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
So... what is an earthquake if it isn't the earth shaking?

Please define "shaking earth" so that we can have some idea of what you are thinking.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Response: The answer is in the very same post in which you've just quoted and responded to. Post #296.
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
You have yet to present any proof.


Again: You have yet to present any proof


I do not doubt it one bit.
You seem completely unable to accept the fact that you are doing more harm than good to your "cause".


What?
Muslims, at least according to Fatihah, need not provide any proof because they have the Koran.


You back peddle really good.

earthquake -
shaking and vibration at the surface of the earth resulting from underground movement along a fault plane of from volcanic activity
​
Funny how you have to change the definition of the word earthquake in order to hold onto your position.

Not surprising, but funny none the less.
Click to expand...

Response: You can refer to post #299 as well. And yes, it is indeed funny.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
"The man held his glass of milk with both hands so the glass of milk would not shake on the table from the vibrations of the loud music."
So based on your logic, since the words "milk" and "shake" are in the statement, one should conclude that it is not a glass of milk but an actual milk shake? Or is it that one is to conclude that if I take a glass of milk and shake it, it's the same as having a milk shake? Yes, once again, a reasonable person can see the absurdity.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... I don't understand what you are trying to say here...
Do you mean that a "shaking earth" is like a glass of milk?

wa:do
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
perhaps you could try another analogy then... because I'm lost.

Fault line stress releases and produces waves that travel through the ground causing everything on the surface to shake... this is an earthquake. In really bad ones the earth can shift several feet along the direction the wave traveled.

wa:do
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
perhaps you could try another analogy then... because I'm lost.

Fault line stress releases and produces waves that travel through the ground causing everything on the surface to shake... this is an earthquake. In really bad ones the earth can shift several feet along the direction the wave traveled.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Response: Perhaps you can explain what in particular you don't understand in post 299. Keep in mind that it is a response to another post so you must understand the context as well.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Quoting Fatihah’s post wholesale so I have it saved for posterity and absurdity.

Fatihah said:
themadhair said:
Fatihah said:
Response: The term "earthquake" is not even in the verse in which you've quoted and yet it is you, not me, who is attributing the verse to mean "earthquake", making you guilty of misinterpretation and interpolating your own meaning, not me.
Click to expand...
Sura 21:31 said:
And we have placed in the [SIZE=+2]earth[/SIZE] firm hills lest it [SIZE=+2]quake[/SIZE] with them, and we have placed therein ravines as roads that haply they may find their way.
Click to expand...
So this verse is describing hills preventing the [SIZE=+2]earth[/SIZE] from undergoing a [SIZE=+2]quake[/SIZE].

Gee, I wonder what we call it when the [SIZE=+2]earth[/SIZE] experiences a [SIZE=+2]quake[/SIZE]?

Oh wait, I know - we use the word [SIZE=+2]“earthquake”[/SIZE]whenever the [SIZE=+2]earth[/SIZE] experiences a [SIZE=+2]quake[/SIZE].

I deeply apologise Fatihah for the ability to read and comprehend words and their meanings, and I sincerely apologise if explaining the meanings of words is offensive to you, your self-imposed pit of ignorance and your well of cognitive dissonance.
Click to expand...
Response: I don't think that I've ever seen a person actually take pride in their absurdity. You are a unique person. Most are ashamed but you seem to take joy in it.

But back to responding to more of your absurdities, you've quoted one translation.Now using your logic, how does this apply to the translations that say "shake" or "shaking"? After all, your logic is based on the term "earthquake".
Next point:

"The man held his glass of milk with both hands so the glass of milk would not shake on the table from the vibrations of the loud music."
So based on your logic, since the words "milk" and "shake" are in the statement, one should conclude that it is not a glass of milk but an actual milk shake? Or is it that one is to conclude that if I take a glass of milk and shake it, it's the same as having a milk shake? Yes, once again, a reasonable person can see the absurdity.
Click to expand...
koranicscience.jpg
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Fatihah said:
Response: Perhaps you can explain what in particular you don't understand in post 299. Keep in mind that it is a response to another post so [size=+1]you must understand the context as well.[/size]
Click to expand...
........HAHAHAHAHHHHHAHAHHHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Fatihah, if you ever visit Ireland mate send me a pm to let me know. I really want to put a video camera on you. It would be the funniest reality tv show ever and I would make shedloads of cash out of it. And I really mean this.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Response: Perhaps you can explain what in particular you don't understand in post 299. Keep in mind that it is a response to another post so you must understand the context as well.
Click to expand...
yeah, I tried... perhaps you can restate your argument so I don't need the context of a discussion I wasn't much a part of?

wa:do
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
yeah, I tried... perhaps you can restate your argument so I don't need the context of a discussion I wasn't much a part of?

wa:do
Click to expand...

Response: That wouldn't be possible. But it doesn't have any relevance to our conversation so there's no need to understand it for our discussion.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Response: That wouldn't be possible. But it doesn't have any relevance to our conversation so there's no need to understand it for our discussion.
Click to expand...
then why did you use it to answer my question in our discussion?

wa:do
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Fatihah said:
But back to responding to more of your absurdities, you've quoted one translation.Now using your logic, how does this apply to the translations that say "shake" or "shaking"? After all, your logic is based on the term "earthquake".
Click to expand...
Fatihah, since you are obviously far more intelligent than anyone else here perhaps you could explain precisely what you think the passage means. If you have already done so then kindly just point at the relevent post.

Fatihah said:
"The man held his glass of milk with both hands so the glass of milk would not shake on the table from the vibrations of the loud music."
So based on your logic, since the words "milk" and "shake" are in the statement, one should conclude that it is not a glass of milk but an actual milk shake? Or is it that one is to conclude that if I take a glass of milk and shake it, it's the same as having a milk shake? Yes, once again, a reasonable person can see the absurdity.
Click to expand...
Oy vey. :cover:
 
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Fatihah said:
Response: You can refer to post #299 as well. And yes, it is indeed funny.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
At this point in the discussion, post #299 is not funny, it is extremely sad.
For it is merely an extreme example at someone either to ignorant to know they are a complete idiot or an extreme example of grasping at straws.
Either way does not bode well for the picture you paint of Islam..

Fatihah said:
Response: Perhaps you can explain what in particular you don't understand in post 299. Keep in mind that it is a response to another post so you must understand the context as well.
Click to expand...
I understand the quoted post that post #299 is in reply to.
However the rest of the post...
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
I disagree.
At this point in the discussion, post #299 is not funny, it is extremely sad.
For it is merely an extreme example at someone either to ignorant to know they are a complete idiot or an extreme example of grasping at straws.
Either way does not bode well for the picture you paint of Islam..

Response: It does to those who are open minded and is reasonable.
Click to expand...
 
F

Fatihah

Well-Known Member
YmirGF said:
Fatihah, since you are obviously far more intelligent than anyone else here perhaps you could explain precisely what you think the passage means. If you have already done so then kindly just point at the relevent post.

Response: You can start with post #210 of page 21 of the thread.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top