Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[The Voice of Reason]

Your argument is defeated. Try to take it graciously.

Hell, just take it.

 

[McBell]

Seeing as Fatihah is so overly proud of his ignorance, I honestly see no point or reason to continue.
The facts have been presented to him.
He flat out refuses to see anything that contradicts his beliefs.
He so much refuses to see the truth he claims to covet to the point of his even twisting the truth around to support his own lies.

Any one who is that far gone is beyond help unless they actually want help.
And so far Fatihah is more than content living in his lies.
So content in fact, that he sees proof of his being flat out wrong as proof of his being right.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Seeing as Fatihah is so overly proud of his ignorance, I honestly see no point or reason to continue.
The facts have been presented to him.
He flat out refuses to see anything that contradicts his beliefs.
He so much refuses to see the truth he claims to covet to the point of his even twisting the truth around to support his own lies.

Any one who is that far gone is beyond help unless they actually want help.
And so far Fatihah is more than content living in his lies.
So content in fact, that he sees proof of his being flat out wrong as proof of his being right.

Confirming once again, that fundamentalists are the same the world over - regardless of which God they worship or which book they choose as sacred.

 

[darkendless]

Confirming once again, that fundamentalists are the same the world over - regardless of which God they worship or which book they choose as sacred.

Damn those fundamentalists, silly atheists, taking those books on science to seriously

This thread is a joke, i spent 30 minutes explaining tectonics and apparently it isn't good enough. Its ok, at least i know im not the one with my head firmly planted in the sand

 

[England my lionheart]

Have you grasped it yet Fatihah

 

[themadhair]

Response: I never said that isostasy had anything to do with earthquakes. But it does when it comes to the formation of mountains.

I see a statement. Where is the proof?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Yeah, where is the prove? Try proofing things for once.

 

[painted wolf]

Isostasy actually is an iffy question when you talk about mountains... not all mountains are isostatic (Himalayas for example)...
And who's model of Isostasy do you use?

It is generally accepted that the earth is a dynamic system that responds to loads in many different ways, however isostasy provides an important 'view' of the processes that are actually happening. Nevertheless, certain areas (such as the Himalayas) are not in isostatic equilibrium, which has forced researchers to identify other reasons to explain their topographic heights (in the case of the Himalayas, by proposing that their elevation is being "propped-up" by the force of the impacting Indian plate).

When continents collide, the continental crust may thicken at their edges in the collision. If this happens, much of the thickened crust may move downwards rather than up as with the iceberg analogy. The idea of continental collisions building mountains "up" is therefore rather a simplification. Instead, the crust thickens and the upper part of the thickened crust may become a mountain range.
However, some continental collisions are far more complex than this, and the region may not be in isostatic equilibrium, so this subject has to be treated with caution.

Isostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fatihah may think my links support his views... but that just shows he never really bothered to read them. Shame really.

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

Shame really.

Well, you tried, Painted Wolfie. It just proves the old adage that "you can lead a muslim to the answer, but you can't make him think". It's tragic, really. *sniffle*

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Well, you tried, Painted Wolfie. It just proves the old adage that "you can lead a muslim to the answer, but you can't make him think". It's tragic, really. *sniffle*

Not really, you need someone to rip on.

 

[ProudMuslim]

Well, you tried, Painted Wolfie. It just proves the old adage that "you can lead a muslim to the answer, but you can't make him think". It's tragic, really. *sniffle*

Take out the word 'muslim' and replace it with 'atheist' and will work perfectly.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Take out the word 'muslim' and replace it with 'atheist' and will work perfectly.

Not really. Your Muslim counterparts have been exposed to some REAL science, yet they deny what the rest of the sane world belives, and decide to believe whatever the book tells them.

I do not fault the Quran for having mistakes, it is a very old book and i expect so, just as i have in the Vedas, but the fact that they will blindly believe anything that the Quran says, is just a shame.

 

[Fatihah]

Seeing as Fatihah is so overly proud of his ignorance, I honestly see no point or reason to continue.
The facts have been presented to him.
He flat out refuses to see anything that contradicts his beliefs.
He so much refuses to see the truth he claims to covet to the point of his even twisting the truth around to support his own lies.

Any one who is that far gone is beyond help unless they actually want help.
And so far Fatihah is more than content living in his lies.
So content in fact, that he sees proof of his being flat out wrong as proof of his being right.

Response: No one is at fault for your denial

 

[Fatihah]

Have you grasped it yet Fatihah

Response: Still in denial?

 

[Fatihah]

I see a statement. Where is the proof?

Response: Show me where I said that isostasy has anything to do with earthquakes? Your inability to do so is the proof.

 

[Fatihah]

Isostasy actually is an iffy question when you talk about mountains... not all mountains are isostatic (Himalayas for example)...
And who's model of Isostasy do you use?



Isostasy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Fatihah may think my links support his views... but that just shows he never really bothered to read them. Shame really.

wa:do

Response: I have read it. Either you are misreading or in denial.

 

[painted wolf]

So the fact that mountains are not isostatic and can form without it doesn't bother you at all?
You will still insist that the Qur'an was talking about isostasy being the cause of mountains?

Which model of isostasy exactly?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Response: Show me where I said that isostasy has anything to do with earthquakes? Your inability to do so is the proof.

The fact that you quoted, from Wikipedia on the other thread, an isostatic process as being ‘evidence’ that mountains stabilise the earth for your ‘mountains prevent the earth from shaking’ argument. It is almost as if, not only are you misunderstanding the words of others, but you are also misunderstanding the words you yourself write.

I am also not allowing you to squirm away by claiming that the earth shaking is different from earthquakes. They are definitional equivalents. It is, however, rather amusing to see you try and argue against a tautology.

 

[Fatihah]

So the fact that mountains are not isostatic and can form without it doesn't bother you at all?
You will still insist that the Qur'an was talking about isostasy being the cause of mountains?

Which model of isostasy exactly?

wa:do

Response: I never claimed that the qur'an talks about isostasy nor have I said that mountains can't form without it. So I don't know why this is being said.

 

[Fatihah]

The fact that you quoted, from Wikipedia on the other thread, an isostatic process as being ‘evidence’ that mountains stabilise the earth for your ‘mountains prevent the earth from shaking’ argument. It is almost as if, not only are you misunderstanding the words of others, but you are also misunderstanding the words you yourself write.

Response: Your inability to comprehend is no fault of mine. No where have I said isostasy is the reason why the earth does not shake nor can you quote any post in which I have. You can however do what you've been doing by quoting something then giving your meaning and not the actual meaning.

Quote: themadhair
I am also not allowing you to squirm away by claiming that the earth shaking is different from earthquakes. They are definitional equivalents. It is, however, rather amusing to see you try and argue against a tautology.

Response: "definitional equivalents"? Speaking of givings words your own meaning...