Quran is free of errors

[The Voice of Reason]

You should make that your signature. Since you ask that ******** question all the time.

You give him too much credit, Don.

He isn't asking a question - he is showing you that he isn't bothering to try to understand what is being said to him. He is effectively saying "I'm not listening to you", whenever he uses that as his response. Much like a small child that puts his fingers in his ears and starts humming, to prevent himself from having to hear something he doesn't want to hear.

 

[Gharib]

You should make that your signature. Since you ask that ******** question all the time.

hey Don, grow up and go kiss a Donkey

stop that kind of language or i will report similar posts made by you in the future.

 

[Fatihah]

And Fat used the quote button just above my post!!! This is a day to be remembered.

Response: Don't celebrate too much. I've always used the quote button. How else can a quote from another post appear in mine?

 

[Gharib]

Man, this is GREAT news!!

it most probably is biased.

First, in post #488, Fatihah demonstrates that he really does know how to use the "quote" feature, and now, you've finally found the "Caps" key!! You two are coming right along. That education you keep bragging about is paying off.

well the prophet has told us to make little children (such as yourself) happy when they ask you for something and not to turn them down. so how could i and Fatihah go against the prophet?

PS - I'm no longer going to bother discussing the inerrancy of the Koran. That issue has been unequivocally resolved. Without question, it is vague, inconsistent, wrong, and anything but inerrant.

you can also believe that the quran has wings just to make your self look more arrogant.

So, I'll just hang around in the thread, and continue to mock your posts, since that is all the three of you are really doing to the rest of the participants. I just want to keep the playing field level.

mocking is good, it leads to hell. well it is unfortunate for you, but thats life, we can't all go to heaven just like we can't all be mockers right?

PSS - You don't need to thank me. Just knowing that you will enjoy the mockery is thanks enough for me.

you have already thanked yourself with your pride in ignorance, i'm speechless, what can i say?

 

[Fatihah]

You give him too much credit, Don.

He isn't asking a question - he is showing you that he isn't bothering to try to understand what is being said to him. He is effectively saying "I'm not listening to you", whenever he uses that as his response. Much like a small child that puts his fingers in his ears and starts humming, to prevent himself from having to hear something he doesn't want to hear.

Response: On the contrary, it means what it says. For example, above you just made a statement but didn't provide any proof. So once again, I see a statement. Where's the proof?

 

[Gharib]

Response: Don't celebrate too much. I've always used the quote button. How else can a quote from another post appear in mine?

don't mind Don, he is too old and probaly forgot his size 15 reading glasses.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

hey Don, grow up and go kiss a Donkey

stop that kind of language or i will report similar posts made by you in the future.

What in the world are you talking about?

YOU are telling another poster to "grow up"? That is true irony.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: Don't celebrate too much. I've always used the quote button. How else can a quote from another post appear in mine?

Serious question - are you simply deleting the last "[/quote]", so that the box doesn't appear? If so, why would you do that?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

i'm speechless, what can i say?

Excellent. Then can we expect you to no longer post - at least in this thread?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Response: On the contrary, it means what it says. For example, above you just made a statement but didn't provide any proof. So once again, I see a statement. Where's the proof?

Response: I see a statement, but I don't see any proof.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

don't mind Don, he is too old and probaly forgot his size 15 reading glasses.

You're getting closer, eselam. You managed to hit the "caps" key for the name "Don", but you seem to have overlooked it when beginning the sentence.

Keep banging away on that keyboard. You're slowly improving. Very slowly ...

 

[Gharib]

Excellent. Then can we expect you to no longer post - at least in this thread?

dream on.

 

[Gharib]

You're getting closer, eselam. You managed to hit the "caps" key for the name "Don", but you seem to have overlooked it when beginning the sentence.

Keep banging away on that keyboard. You're slowly improving. Very slowly ...

yes i am improving, i'm not an oldie such as yourself.

you heard this before "can't teach an old dog new tricks" well aparently i'm not old so there is still room for improvement.

 

[YmirGF]

The statement directly above simply does not make any sense because as we both know, earthquakes do happen. So to say that no such movement is perceptible due to the incredibly slow movement of the tectonic plates is illogical when tectonic plates are the cause of earthquakes.

It is difficult to believe I am actually reading this statement.

Response: How sad. I presented to you clear evidence in post 498 and yet you still won't acknowledge it. What we are seeing is a lack of humility on your part because your are determined to be right despite being clearly shown that you are wrong. Many people have this ego and do not like the idea of acknowledging when they are wrong because they feel like a failure and/or they dislike the idea of acknowledging that their knowledge was not as superior as their counterpart. But let me be the first to say that the characteristic to show a lack of humility and to not acknowledge your own error is much less attractive than to be humble enough and admit your error. Showing that you are a person who admires and acknowledges truth despite how others may see you is much more appealing.

I wish you could appreciate the simple fact that if I thought there was merit in your argument, I would have little difficulting in saying so. I simply don't agree and humility has little to do with it. Do keep us posted how your case goes when you take it to scientists who are experts in their field. No doubt, you will make the evening news and that will usher in a new era in Islamic thought as the world bows to the deep wisdom of Muslim scholars.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

you heard this before "can't teach an old dog new tricks" well aparently i'm not old so there is still room for improvement.

Well, we have finally come to a point of agreement. You definitely have room for improvement. Lots of room. Lots and lots of room.

Tremendous room. Room beyond room. Acres of room. More room than most people could imagine. Room that goes on forever. Infinite room. Enough room to cover the earth. Mucho roomo. Rooms upon rooms.

The only real question is - will you ever move into any of that room?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Apparently, it was too good to last.

You would think that, once he has mastered that particular function, he would be able to repeat the process - as any well trained monkey could do.

Alas, such is not the case.

The latter has surpassed his skills.

 

[themadhair]

In other words, you made a statement that mountains do not prevent the earth from shaking and that they do not stabilize the earth without any proof or knowledge before you made the claim but since you've already made the claim and lack the humility to take it back, you're now backpeddling for proof.

Let me get this straight – referencing proper sources and explaining in painstaking detail, detail that reached such a simplified level that the US education authority judged it suitable for a primary school level textbook on the topic, how earthquakes occur and how mountains, due to their formation being entirely incidental to tectonic plate interaction, have no effect whatsoever on these earthquakes – all that does not constitute proof?

And when I explain elementary principles of classical mechanics in an attempt to educate you, and largely based upon questions you asked demonstrating no knowledge of this subject, I must be engaging in backpeddling?

And, throughout this entire episode of your muppetry, you have never once provided any evidence whatsoever that verifies you claim of mountains preventing shaking?

Adressing your statement of inertia, again you are wrong. Inertia is not a property of matter.

It really is. The following is taken from these notes as used in an Indiana University course:

The Momentum Lab, Some Notes
Definition, inertia: The property of matter which requires the exertion of a force on a
body to change its position or motion.

Your own definition proves that. It is you who just stated that inertia is the principle in which to describe the motion of matter and how it is affected by applied force. So your own words demonstrate that inertia is not a property of matter.

Inertia is the property of matter upon which classical mechanics is formulated. It is actually impossible to graduate from a secondary school in Ireland without having encountered this material in a science class. I again apologise for assuming that you, Fatihah, had access to similar educational standards.

But I don't have time for details.

Or to do research, to use rational thought or to learn how to use the [quotе][/quotе] tags correctly either.

Listen to what you just said: "The more mass an object has the more resistant it is to changing movement under a force." These are your words, not mine. So if you understand this concept and you understand how mountains are formed, why are you being so stubborn as to realizing that mountains do in fact stabilize the earth and prevent it from shaking?

This argument might make sense if the mountains constituted additional mass to that of the tectonic plates involved. The problem is, Fatihah, that mountains are formed from mass that is already present within those plates. If your claim that mountains constituted additional mass for buffering were true, then mountain regions would experience earthquakes of less frequency and/or of less strength than those of non-mountainous regions experiencing similar amounts of tectonic plate activity.

Consider the three main types of tectonic plate interaction – in collision, in divergence and in parallel (note that non-volcanic mountains are only a feature of plates in collision). If your claim were true that mountains constituted additional mass then the first type of interaction, that of plates in collision, should experience earthquakes of less frequency and/or strength than the other types of plate interaction. This is not the case Fatihah as the geological activity map painted wolf posted has demonstrated.

You need to reread the post. No where in the post have I said that I have no reason why the earth should be shaking and I never claimed that the earth "should" be shaking and you can't quote any post of mine saying otherwise.

You are claiming that mountains prevent the earth from shaking. For this to be true then, in the absence of mountains, there should be some shaking of the earth. For you to claim that mountains prevent the earth from shaking there must necessarily be some earth shaking for those mountains to prevent. If you have no reason to suppose the earth should be shaking Fatihah then you should also have no reason to suppose that mountains should prevent that non-existent shaking.

Is it proof that you want from me?

Presenting something other than ignorance and irrationality to substantiate you claim that mountains prevent shaking, shaking that you apparently have no reason to believe exists by your own words, would be appreciated.

It is you who just used wikipedia as a source of evidence, therefore confirming its reliability as a good source.

In general Wikipedia is pretty good as a source. If you ever have a challenge to any information contained on wikipedia you can always see the source wikipedia used for that information.

Once again I can not provide a link for you to simply click on due to the fact that I am on this site through my blackberry phone.

If you are unable to provide links to supporting websites then you really should not be expecting others to do so. Regardless of your circumstances you have no reason for attempting to enforce a double standard.

Once there, under the subtitle "geology", go to the second paragraph and read. In it it says "In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)".

There are two gaping holes in your interpretation Fatihah (koranic science once again huh?):

Firstly, the weight of some mountain systems can, in the absence of sufficient tectonic pressure, cause the plate containing them to sink lower into the magma layer beneath it. This is what is meant by the above passage, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the prevention of earthquakes/quakes/shaking or stabilising the earth within the context of preventing shaking/earthquakes/quakes. Of course, why would a little thing like ‘context’ get in the way of koranic science?

Secondly, the highest mountain range in the world, the Himalayas, is not in isostatic equilibrium. The use of isostasy has to take account of the mechanics of the plate interaction being examined, and it is often the case that mountain ranges do not have deep roots at all.

I presented to you clear evidence in post 498 and yet you still won't acknowledge it.

I would recommend that, in future, you actually take the time to understand the evidence and its associated context before presenting it. That way, should you discover that it doesn’t support your argument, you can save others the time from having to explain the correct context to you.

In case anyone is wondering why I and others are continuing this discussion, when it is clear that Fatihah is likely beyond educating, I can offer two reasons:

Firstly, there is the comedy value. From the ‘Three Stooges’ to Phoebe and Joey from ‘Friends’, the character of the idiot has always been a staple of the comedic arts. Some of the posts made on this forum are the funniest ******* things I have ever read.

Secondly, there is the opportunity to practice exposition. While it may not be quite possible to reduce an explanation to the level of a koranic scientist, it will help foster and develop skills useful for communicating and conveying ideas for the purpose of education.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

hey Don, grow up and go kiss a Donkey

stop that kind of language or i will report similar posts made by you in the future.

Go ahead. Shows how petty you are. Telling me to grow up... In mental age, i think many will agree i am MUCH older than you.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

don't mind Don, he is too old and probaly forgot his size 15 reading glasses.

That was so not funny. That was probably the worst sarcastic comment i have ever read... Keep trying, you might just get there one day!

 

[Fatihah]

There are two gaping holes in your interpretation Fatihah (koranic science once again huh?):

Firstly, the weight of some mountain systems can, in the absence of sufficient tectonic pressure, cause the plate containing them to sink lower into the magma layer beneath it. This is what is meant by the above passage, and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the prevention of earthquakes/quakes/shaking or stabilising the earth within the context of preventing shaking/earthquakes/quakes. Of course, why would a little thing like ‘context’ get in the way of koranic science?

Secondly, the highest mountain range in the world, the Himalayas, is not in isostatic equilibrium. The use of isostasy has to take account of the mechanics of the plate interaction being examined, and it is often the case that mountain ranges do not have deep roots at all.

I would recommend that, in future, you actually take the time to understand the evidence and its associated context before presenting it. That way, should you discover that it doesn’t support your argument, you can save others the time from having to explain the correct context to you.

In case anyone is wondering why I and others are continuing this discussion, when it is clear that Fatihah is likely beyond educating, I can offer two reasons:

Firstly, there is the comedy value. From the ‘Three Stooges’ to Phoebe and Joey from ‘Friends’, the character of the idiot has always been a staple of the comedic arts. Some of the posts made on this forum are the funniest ******* things I have ever read.

Secondly, there is the opportunity to practice exposition. While it may not be quite possible to reduce an explanation to the level of a koranic scientist, it will help foster and develop skills useful for communicating and conveying ideas for the purpose of education.

Response: Amazing. You read clear evidence and still insist on denying it. I showed to you clearly in post 498 that mountains do in fact stabilize the earth and you act as if you never saw it.

The evidence:
"In order to balance the weight of the earth's surface, much of the compressed rock is forced downward, producing deep "mountain roots"(See the Book of "Earth", Press and Siever page. 413). Mountains therefore form downward as well as upward (see isostasy)"

My simple yes or no question is this: Are you telling me that this simple comprehensive statement is not evidence that mountains stabilize the earth? Yes or No?