Modern Science proves the Authenticity of the Glorious Qur'an

[YmirGF]

What do you think happens when it rains over the ocean?

wa:do

I thought you were the scientific one here? Surely you must have noticed all the puddles of pure rain water collecting on the top of the ocean, like an oil slick. How can you doubt the majesty of Islamic reasoning?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i will also mentione the fly, but tomorrow not now

Hopefully, the "fly story" will be every bit as intriguing as the rest of your posts.

Painted Wolf - will you alert that National Academy of Science that we will have groundbreaking new theory of flies, and that the paper will be submitted tomorrow evening?

Hey - just a thought, eselam. While you're reading the verses for the fly story, why don't you take a minute to peruse the owner's manual for that TRS-80 computer you are using. Somewhere in there, there should be a paragraph on how to locate and engage the "Caps" key.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

legends aren't good enough, facts are.

... coming from a boy that will quote us a few verses on flies, after he reads them.

 

[Fatihah]

Actually it does... salinity varies by tide and by the location in the estuary you are in... it's all that water mixing...

Response: The salinity does not mix. In other words, if one were to take a cup of water from where the two waters meet, it will not be a mixture of fresh and salt water. The fresh water is side by side or on a slant in connection with the salt water. This barrier is called a halocline in oceanology. Any deep see diver can tell you this. They no that they are in this area due to the change in oxygen.

 

[themadhair]

Response: The salinity does not mix. In other words, if one were to take a cup of water from where the two waters meet, it will not be a mixture of fresh and salt water. The fresh water is side by side or on a slant in connection with the salt water. This barrier is called a halocline in oceanology. Any deep see diver can tell you this. They no that they are in this area due to the change in oxygen.

This is simply wrong and completly unrepresentative of what a halocline is. Due to the difference in density between water of different salinity, and also due to temperature, you end up with a salinity gradient. This isn’t due to the mixture of seawater and freashwater – this naturally occurs in seawater on its own.

In estuaries the different waters do mix simply due to the waters impacting. This mixing of waters occur – but mixing saltwater and freshwater isn’t what causes a halocline.

 

[Fatihah]

This is simply wrong and completly unrepresentative of what a halocline is. Due to the difference in density between water of different salinity, and also due to temperature, you end up with a salinity gradient. This isn’t due to the mixture of seawater and freashwater – this naturally occurs in seawater on its own.

In estuaries the different waters do mix simply due to the waters impacting. This mixing of waters occur – but mixing saltwater and freshwater isn’t what causes a halocline.

Response: Yes. And when you apply that same understanding to the meeting of fresh and saltwater, the barrier is called a halocline.

 

[themadhair]

Response: Yes. And when you apply that same understanding to the meeting of fresh and saltwater, the barrier is called a halocline.

But as noted, most of the time when freshwater and seawater meet these waters mix quite readily due to them impacting each other (as at estuaries). You only get a barrier in ‘stillwaters’, and even those are unstable and prone to mixing.

AFAIK, the phrase halocline is mostly used to describe the phenomena of varying salt concentration with depth that occurs in oceans due to surface evaporation.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: The salinity does not mix. In other words, if one were to take a cup of water from where the two waters meet, it will not be a mixture of fresh and salt water. The fresh water is side by side or on a slant in connection with the salt water. This barrier is called a halocline in oceanology. Any deep see diver can tell you this. They no that they are in this area due to the change in oxygen.

I won't even try to respond to the accuracy of this nugget, but I would ask - where in the Glorious Koran can one find this? I'm sure that it's in there, I'd just like to see what it says.

 

[YmirGF]

I won't even try to respond to the accuracy of this nugget, but I would ask - where in the Glorious Koran can one find this? I'm sure that it's in there, I'd just like to see what it says.

55. ar-Rahman: The Merciful
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr)
14 He created man of clay like the potter's,
15 And the jinn did He create of smokeless fire.
16 Which is it, of the favours of your Lord, that ye deny?
17 Lord of the two Easts, and Lord of the two Wests!
18 Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that ye deny?
19 He hath loosed the two seas. They meet.
20 There is a barrier between them. They encroach not (one upon the other).
21 Which is it, of the favours of your Lord that ye deny?

25. al-Furqan The Criterion
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr)
52 So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.
53 And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.
54 And He it is Who hath created man from water, and hath appointed for him kindred by blood and kindred by marriage; for thy Lord is ever Powerful.

Leaving aside the minor contradiction between 55:14 and 25:54 regarding how man was created, the first thing we need to address is what the Qur’an is actually saying as opposed to the fabrications of what it is supposed to be saying.

In the first example, we have two seas that meet but do not mix because there is a barrier between them. This is not an outlandish fact for a person in the 7th century to talk about as it would indeed seem to be quite correct to the casual observer, however upon closer scrutiny it is apparent that the lesser body of water will take on the qualities of the greater body of water. That is just the way the process works.

The second example is also an example of what would seem to be accurate from casual observation. As anyone who has ever visited a river delta can tell you, there is no single point where the water is totally salty and a few feet away fresh water. Rather, there is a large area where the two meet and mingle. It can be assumed that Muhammad simply misunderstood what he was being told and so reported his erroneous assumptions as fact because his desert dwelling followers probably wouldn't have any idea one way or the other.

 

[themadhair]

So the places where you actually do get a halocline from frehwater/seawater interactions, underground springs and cave lakes, isn't even being referred to in the koran????

Why am not surprised?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It can be assumed that Muhammad simply misunderstood ...

You lowly infidel!!

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

Of course, I see nothing even remotely close to a halocline, but I'm sure that our fine Muslim apologists will be able to tell me how that is included in the text. It shouldn't be too awfully difficult to twist those particular verses to show us how that works.

 

[gnostic]

why do you repeatedly call yourself or others infidels a lot?

It is sort of like the Greeks and Romans calling other people "barbarians", Christians called non-Jewish Christians "Gentiles", etc. Japanese called white people something, but I am not sure of the translation.

Rather than feel insulted, YmirGF use it proudly.

I supposed is shorter than calling people "non-Muslims".

 

[gnostic]

14 He created man of clay like the potter's,

Allah (or Muhammad) have clearly stolen this idea from the ancient Egyptian religion. The Egyptian god Khnum was known as the Potter, who created life (humans) from clay on his pottery-wheel.

And the jinn did He create of smokeless fire.

Might as well as watch I Dream of Jeannie or read about Aladdin.

 

[YmirGF]

It is sort of like the Greeks and Romans calling other people "barbarians", Christians called non-Jewish Christians "Gentiles", etc. Japanese called white people something, but I am not sure of the translation.

Rather than feel insulted, YmirGF use it proudly.

I supposed is shorter than calling people "non-Muslims".

Bang on Gnostic Storyteller. I am dang proud of being and infidel and would never, ever, go over to the dark side of the self-righteous. There is actually no possibility whatsoever that I would turn to any religion and adopt it -- least of all Islam (or Scientology).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Bang on Gnostic Storyteller. I am dang proud of being and infidel and would never, ever, go over to the dark side of the self-righteous. There is actually no possibility whatsoever that I would turn to any religion and adopt it -- least of all Islam (or Scientology).

Hedley Lamarr: My mind is aglow with whirling, transient nodes of thought careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
Taggart: Ditto.


Put me down for a "Ditto".

 

[painted wolf]

If fresh water and salty water can't mix... how does osmosis work?

Why aren't we all dead?

wa:do

 

[YmirGF]

If fresh water and salty water can't mix... how does osmosis work?

Why aren't we all dead?

wa:do

:faint:

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I’ll put it this way – one of the reasons GR was so quickly accepted by the scientific community was because it explained Newtonian mechanics. When a new theory replaces an older theory it usually does so by explaining the limitations of the older theory. It is extremely rare to find an instance where a newer scientific theory completely refuted the older theory, as opposed to merely explaining it to a deeper more precise level.

I am sorry, but i think that the last sentence more or less just states what i said right from the beginning. A new theory needs to provide better or more explanations than the last one. So i see no real disagreement here.
I only was confused when you stated that a new theory would have to explain the "success" of the old one. Thats what caught my eye. I see no reason nor any sense in discussing or explaining why a theory that has been or will be replaced by the new one had success. Perhaps i am just misunderstanding what you originally meant.
I do disagree however that gravitation was so quickly accepted because it explained newton. At least it shouldnt have ! It should have been so easily accepted because it explained gravity and observations that newtons ideas could not. Perhaps we are merely arguing about the wording here.

GR is gravity and,...

With GR i actually meant general relativity. In my understanding general relativity almost contradicts QM while special relativity could potentially be unified with QM.
But it has been a while since i spent time on these topics so I might be wrong.
I have read the rest of your post and do not see any point of disagreement there between us.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

So the places where you actually do get a halocline from frehwater/seawater interactions, underground springs and cave lakes, isn't even being referred to in the koran????

Why am not surprised?

Why am I not surprised that even the story and supposed knowledge that esalam was then not really sure about is not to be found in the quran either while everybody here debated it as if it were ? :sarcastic

 

[Alla Prima]

Bang on Gnostic Storyteller. I am dang proud of being and infidel and would never, ever, go over to the dark side of the self-righteous. There is actually no possibility whatsoever that I would turn to any religion and adopt it -- least of all Islam (or Scientology).

Speaking of cults (Scientology is seen by many to be a cult) has anyone done a thread on whether or not Islam qualifies as a cult? Personally I'm undecided on the matter.