Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[Fatihah]

It would appear that there some publications that disagree with you:
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Google Book Search
Chapter 5: Testing the frequency factor — with different texts and different readers

Response: So because a book used the term it automatically means it makes sense? See how vain you are. What happens if everybody thought it makes sense to jump of Mt. Everest with no parachute? Truth does not depend on whether someone agrees with you. This is something you desperately need to learn.

Quote:themadhair
Are you claiming that two adjectives cannot be combined? So I am mistaken if I use the phrase ‘intolerably dense person’?

Response: That depends on the words and how they are placed like I said. What about the phrase "dense intolerably person". How about a "highly lowly person" Secondly, adjectives are followed directly by a noun to describe a noun as you have demonstrated. You said "definitional equivalent". Is there a noun right after? No. But if you want to insist on defending this absurd term, you go right ahead. Just keep in mind that other people are watching this. This common sense should have been learned in the first grade. I'm not going to teach it to you now. Why it skipped you is your issue, not mine. But again, if you wish to continue on with this, you go right ahead. I insist.

Quote: themadhair
‘Cat’ and ‘dog’ are nouns, the words definitional and equivalent are adjectives. I already know that you have a confusion on different words as you seem to think ‘run’ is a noun. I notice that you still haven’t retracted your incorrect claim over ‘run’ being a noun, choosing instead to avoid the issue.

Response: That's exactly my point. Look at how vain you are. You are insisting on a debate. It's killing you that I won't debate with you whether "run" can be a noun or not isn't it? How vain you are. So what if I don't address it. Why is it such an issue with you. You've already said that I am wrong, right? So that's it. Why do you insist on going on? Because you are an extremely vain person. You need some kind of validation. You thrive on it. How sad. I pray for you.

Quote: themadhair
I note that you simply ignored my comments and still have not included a trackback. Funny that you avoid including that trackback.

Response: Also note how you keep bringing it up too. Lose the vain desires. It's really not very appealing. But clearly you can't help it. Even as you read this, you'll bring it up again in your response desperately hoping I respond to it. How vain you are. How sad it is.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Surely you jest...?

Or perhaps you are being generous?

Chalk it up to "generosity". I'm already on record as saying that a dull, slow witted third grader would mutilate him in a debate.

For what it's worth, I fully believe that your statement about your 8 year old daughter is accurate. I'd go as far as to say that she probably has a better grip on logic and the English language, as well.

 

[themadhair]

Response: So because a book used the term it automatically means it makes sense?

Not necessarily, but it does show that not everyone is as language inebriated as yourself Fatihah, and that the phrase is in usage.

Secondly, adjectives are followed directly by a noun to describe a noun as you have demonstrated. You said "definitional equivalent". Is there a noun right after? No.

The term ‘equivalent’ is functioning as both a noun and adjective. For example - ‘a circular ball is exactly equivalent to a sphere, they are exact equivalents.’

But if you want to insist on defending this absurd term, you go right ahead.

Of course I will. If it is used in academic papers such as www.springerlink.com/index/G22G701152H7G8N8.pdf and analysis.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/3/61.pdf then I’m pretty sure it is valid. Particularly since these papers use it in the same manner I do.

I'm not going to teach it to you now.

In order to teach someone something it is necessary for you to have learned that thing. This is a problem for you.

It's killing you that I won't debate with you whether "run" can be a noun or not isn't it?

If by ‘killing you’ you meant ‘making you laugh hysterically’ then I agree.

Why do you insist on going on?

For three reasons:
1) It is actually a way to practice boiling concepts and ideas down to a simple level.
2) It is absolutely hilarious to read your posts.
3) Because I fully intend to link to this thread as an example of how religious fundamentalism can make people behave in the most ridiculous and illogical manner. The more I continue the more examples of fundamentalist thinking and irrational absurdities you provide.

Response: Also note how you keep bringing it up too.

Of course I bring it (trackbacks) up. You made an accusation against me and will not link to the post, in its original context, to allow other posters to judge your accusations. When I quote from someone I include the trackback because I want people to be able to check out the actual context.
The difference between us, in that I will provide the supporting trackback, is something I have no problem emphasising.

 

[McBell]

For what it's worth, I fully believe that your statement about your 8 year old daughter is accurate. I'd go as far as to say that she probably has a better grip on logic and the English language, as well.

Than Fatihah? You bet your arse she does.
Though she is not an expert in the fields by any stretch of the imagination, she has the ability to learn from her mistakes and even runs things by me and my wife when she thinks there is something wrong with it. A trait that Fatihah seems proud to be lacking.

 

[painted wolf]

I'm just curious how someone can claim to understand a scientific concept like Isostacy and not know that there are three quite different models as to how it works...

Especially when it's right near the top of the wiki page that is so often cited as the source of knowledge...
Oh well...

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm just curious how someone can claim to understand a scientific concept like Isostacy and not know that there are three quite different models as to how it works...

Especially when it's right near the top of the wiki page that is so often cited as the source of knowledge...
Oh well...

wa:do

Silly PW. You seem to be under the impression that he actually read the Wiki page that he linked. He probably just Googled up the term, and then linked the first thing that he could find.

It isn't like he understands the model you are referencing - much less the two alternatives.

 

[YmirGF]

Silly PW. You seem to be under the impression that he actually read the Wiki page that he linked. He probably just Googled up the term, and then linked the first thing that he could find.

It isn't like he understands the model you are referencing - much less the two alternatives.

Infidel, dog.

 

[painted wolf]

I know... he did the cherry pick only the information that conforms to my views and ignore the rest thing...

It's just so disappointing... I know people of faith can think scientifically... I do it myself... I know a few other scientists of faith... I can't help but feel bad for people for whom the justification of faith requires such mental gymnastics as to isolate them from reality.

wa:do

 

[Fatihah]

I know... he did the cherry pick only the information that conforms to my views and ignore the rest thing...

It's just so disappointing... I know people of faith can think scientifically... I do it myself... I know a few other scientists of faith... I can't help but feel bad for people for whom the justification of faith requires such mental gymnastics as to isolate them from reality.

wa:do

Response: Yes. I cherry picked the clear evidence which proves the scientific miracle in post 509.

 

[McBell]

Response: Yes. I cherry picked the clear evidence which proves the scientific miracle in post 509.

There is no evidence, clear or otherwise, that 'proves' anything mentioned in post #509.
Your denial of this fact is most revealing.

 

[painted wolf]

And you ignored the clear evidence everywhere else in the article... even the very definition of isostacy and the various ways in which it may work.... and places that it doesn't work.

Mental gymnastics.

wa:do

 

[gnostic]

Response: That wouldn't make sense then when you yourself try to prove something scientifically when your proof allows error.

Have you ever study science before?

Science allow for acceptable margin of errors for any given tests. That's why you run as many tests as you can. One test don't prove any given theory. It has to be verified by tests from others. Science don't just go for accuracy, it go for precision as well. Accuracy and precision are two scientific terms.

The beauty of science is that allow for re-examination or re-evaluation.

What theory may be proven 500 years ago, may not be true today, because the device use to test and measure have improved. Our knowledge is also improve as we progress. Once scientist may have certain knowledge now, but the next day someone else will have a better understanding.

Religion don't allow for re-examination or re-evaluation.

You seriously don't have any understanding of science.

Some Muslims here have quoted certain verses, and think it is the Big Bang.

Yes, today, the most prevalent scientific theory of origin of the universe is the Big Bang, but what would happen if in 10 years time, someone else come up with a newer better theory, with better evidences that will disprove the Big Bang.

What happens then? Do you then deny ever linking your so-called "scientific miracle" verse to the Big Bang?

Einstein's law of relativity was great, for astronomical calculation, but is completely useless at subatomic level, hence the Quantum Mechanics. A more recent theory, the String Theory, tried to combine or unite both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Before Einstein, the most prevalent mechanics was that of Newton's.

Our knowledge in science can improve. But if you don't re-examine or re-evaluate what you have learned, then you are stuck intellectually.

The Qur'an has proven anything, because if offer no theory or explanation.

 

[themadhair]

Yes, today, the most prevalent scientific theory of origin of the universe is the Big Bang, but what would happen if in 10 years time, someone else come up with a newer better theory, with better evidences that will disprove the Big Bang.

The new theory also has to explain the success of the old one. Einstein's theory didn't 'disprove' Newton for example, it took the ball much further while explaining the success of Newton. The replacement to big bang will likely be similar.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The new theory also has to explain the success of the old one. Einstein's theory didn't 'disprove' Newton for example, it took the ball much further while explaining the success of Newton. The replacement to big bang will likely be similar.

I disagree.
A new theory doesn't have to explain any "success" of an older one.
A new theory has to explain more natural phenomena than the older one or it has to explain the same phenomena better (more exact).
Einsteins theory for example eplained the perihelic turn that we can observer. Accoringt to newton such a thing wouldnt occur.
In that sense Newtons theory has been prooven to be false.

 

[themadhair]

In that sense Newtons theory has been prooven to be false.

Did you know that Newton’s theory is a first approximation of Einsteinian equations?

 

[gnostic]

The new theory also has to explain the success of the old one. Einstein's theory didn't 'disprove' Newton for example, it took the ball much further while explaining the success of Newton. The replacement to big bang will likely be similar.

That's why I said that we need to re-evaluate our knowledge when you come to new knowledge, whether the new knowledge disprove the old one, or the new knowledge improve the old one.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

As said before: Einstein didn't explain the success of Newton.

Did you know that Newton’s theory is a first approximation of Einsteinian equations?

No matter what it is called ... Newtons "laws" are of course wrong strictly speaking.

Concerning the term approximation it depends on the perspective you look at it from.
Seen from Newtons viewpoint it of course was no approximation.
Seen from our viewpoint it is of course "used" as approximation which we consider valid under certain circumstances (low speed for example).
Seen from a theory t(n) every scienctific theory t(n-1) is a kind of approximation of the current (better) theory. Einstein also has only an approximation so to speak if you look at it from Einstein+1.
If you take quantum physics into account then Einstein actually would probably be worse than newton when speaking about low mass objects.

 

[themadhair]

As said before: Einstein didn't explain the success of Newton.

He did actually. By expanding our understanding of gravity we can see why Newton’s laws were as accurate as they were.

No matter what it is called ... Newtons "laws" are of course wrong strictly speaking.

We only because we are aware of their limitations and inaccuracies – information that came from an increased understanding of the phenomena involved due to the newer theory.

Concerning the term approximation it depends on the perspective you look at it from.

I would have thought the fact that, when making certain simplifying assumptions (such as low speed and low mass) to the equations of general relativity, an equation equivalent to Newtonian gravitation drops out would render it an approximation. This perspective argument seems…irrelevant.

If you take quantum physics into account then Einstein actually would probably be worse than newton when speaking about low mass objects.

You sure about that? I seem to remember from my QM modules that (special) relativity could be used to get a more precise result if needed. When dealing with QM you aren’t using general relativity but special relativity – Newton and GR don’t apply in these calculations.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

He did actually. By expanding our understanding of gravity we can see why Newton’s laws were as accurate as they were.

I see where you are coming from.
Well i think we two just argue about a view here, not about a real difference.
For me he presented something better and thus replaced the old.
That is for me sufficient for a new theory.

We only because we are aware of their limitations and inaccuracies – information that came from an increased understanding of the phenomena involved due to the newer theory.

Of course, but that is normal. Any new theory has to be better than the last one in order to make it into the classrooms. You do not need to explain why the last one was of any quality or had success.

I would have thought the fact that, when making certain simplifying assumptions (such as low speed and low mass) to the equations of general relativity, an equation equivalent to Newtonian gravitation drops out would render it an approximation. This perspective argument seems…irrelevant.

I think the difference becomes very very small indeed. I see no reason however why we should therefore require a new theory to explain the success of the old one ?

You sure about that? I seem to remember from my QM modules that (special) relativity could be used to get a more precise result if needed. When dealing with QM you aren’t using general relativity but special relativity – Newton and GR don’t apply in these calculations.

Well i am no specialist about that. I had thought that classical physics follow from quantum mechanics when we deal with larger objects (with a delta similar to the one between newton and einstein) while relativity (indeed at least the GR) seems to almost contradict certain fundamental assertions of QM.
But i might be wrong.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Infidel, dog.

I see words, but I don't see any proof.