Jump to content
Islamic Forum
StopS

Why Are Muslims So Suspicious Of Science?

Recommended Posts

That's like someone saying to a parent of a child who goes to school: "So you place your trust in the teacher as much as the education of your child." doesn't make sense. Teachers(Scholars) are needed to teach and show what a certain subject(Quran, Islam, etc) is. So what you have said above does not make sense. Scholars are needed to teach religion, just like teachers of maths are needed to teach mathematics. That does not mean I place my faith in them as much as Quran.

 

BTW I also mentioned 'our prophet(saw)' along with scholars. Why didn't you take that into account too when making the above statement? Anyway, lets not get off topic and go into other areas. It will just get confusing. Maybe you can start another thread if you want into the matter. Up to you.

 

 

 

Of course the video(or the link) doesn't say anything about the Quran. Its not even about the Quran. Why would it say whether what is in the Quran is to be taken literally or not? The video is not even made by Muslims!! And I am not implying that ants have conversations like humans. All I am saying is that the quran tells us that the ant spoke. Scientists now say ants speak. Now if you have a problem with ants speaking you need to take it up with those scientists!

 

And there is a difference between communicating and speaking. Communication can be done through many means such as moving your hands, etc, etc but we are talking specifically about 'speaking'(which is just one of the avenues of communication'). Now again if you think ants don't speak OR that even if they do "its just storm in a tea cup" and was "already known", then you need to go and take these concerns up with those scientists NOT me.

 

Look, nobody's perfect: for many of these topics that appear on this forum one could sometimes write a book or at least a long screed of analysis.

 

Otherwise I can't really answer any of your rantings.

Obviously, for all time = you are right and i am wrong. You are a good Muslim and I am a Kafir. Note the capital K.

I will try to take my concerns up with 'the scientists' anyway.

 

Regards,

 

ron

 

PS I'm glad that your 'anger management course' went well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Look, nobody's perfect: for many of these topics that appear on this forum one could sometimes write a book or at least a long screed of analysis.

 

Otherwise I can't really answer any of your rantings.

Obviously, for all time = you are right and i am wrong. You are a good Muslim and I am a Kafir. Note the capital K.

I will try to take my concerns up with 'the scientists' anyway.

 

Regards,

 

ron

 

PS I'm glad that your 'anger management course' went well.

 

What anger management course?! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I couldn't help but notice that you seemed to have become a little more 'mellow', shall I say. Reasonable even. But maybe, as they say, 'a leopard will never change his spots'

 

best wishes,

 

ron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, who's discussing the Quran?

 

ron

 

YOU SEE, science is biggest evidence that quran is from God, so if we dont ponder upon that, how can we know if quran is from God or anybody else.

 

i really dont understand you, you come to muslims to discuss stuff and you have prepared yourself against muslims , by reading quran.

 

imagine i want to discuss with hinduists and i go to their forum and i have not read VEDA scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said I can communicate with an ant.

 

But you said: "The ant was speaking or communicating in its OWN language. Language of the ANTS." How do you know this?

 

 

If you re-read the verse you posted, it says the ant was speaking to other ants, warning them that Prophet Solomon's(peace be upon him) army is heading this way and they might accidentally crush you. The ant was not speaking to humans.

 

 

 

Umm.. where did you get that Allah(swt) spoke Arabic? Or that Adam peace be upon him, spoke Arabic?

 

So if you read the next sentence, it says: "So he smiled amused at her speech; and he said..." which shows that the ants were NOT talking to other ants exclusively, but that a human was able to hear it. Or are you declaring Solomon as an ant?

 

But listen, this is irrelevant! It just shows that the Koran does not only talk about scientifically accurate facts, but about fables and folklore too. There are numerous examples of this.

 

The point is why Muslims today are so suspicious and even hostile towards science?

 

Example:

 

Science has unhinged itself from the service of religion, and now purports to serve itself, expanding to constitute a new “scientism” where rationality and empiricism both form the most absolute basis for belief, and revelation is demoted into the scientifically unnecessary but ultimately personal and subjective realm.

 

Scientism desperately wishes science itself to become the absolute source of understanding age-old questions on the purposes of existence as well as morality. Thus, from the Muslim believer’s point of view, unbelief forms the basis of modern civilization

 

It is thus no surprise that Islam actively opposes the underpinnings of modern science

 

They also focus on the evils of a godless science which demurs not to the Divine, but to the vicious desires of godless men

 

Science is usually hitched to the service of modern man, who in turn, has unhitched himself from the Divine in his zeal to gain mastery and power over the natural world.

 

Thus, Muslims cannot continue with a sense of inferiority vis-à-vis Western science.

 

From: https://sites.google...ce-or-scientism

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should start by going over his evidence piece by piece, video by video and refute it. Not for him, but do it to convince other readers. So maybe others can come on the "true path" once they see andalus' evidences being refuted.

 

No, I don't think so. You, however should understand before posting. I specifically said I do NOT want any examples from the Arab Golden Age of almost 1000 years ago. What video do I get? A video about the Arab Golden Age of almost 1000 years ago.

 

So why would I have to refute a video some guy posts which has nothing to do with this topic and one which I explicitly excluded? Are you clear now? Does it make sense to demand from me a refutation of a nonsensical point? What a silly thought. THINK! before you post, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Getting it off their chest: Study reveals how ants talk to each other

 

So.. StopS.. when are you converting to Islam? :happy:

 

 

Are you an adult? I have no idea how to treat this politely and take anything you say seriously to any degree. Are you insane? Do you seriously believe ants use a language to convey thoughts intelligible to humans???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So scientists have found out to be true in 2009 what Allah(swt) revealed in the Quran about 1433 years ago. SubhanAllah.

 

Now this, I am sorry to say, is an outright lie. But you can prove me wrong by citing the paper, the number and authors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who the hell are you to tell me that???

 

why dont you post some evidence for your claims so you can debunk me , instead of saying "go from the thread" is that your atheist biggest argument, i thought you were smarter than that.

 

I have wasted enough time and energy with you. You are hopeless. You don't want to learn or accept anyone else's viewpoint, so please, pretty please, leave me alone? Why is that so difficult to accept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you an adult? I have no idea how to treat this politely and take anything you say seriously to any degree. Are you insane? Do you seriously believe ants use a language to convey thoughts intelligible to humans???

 

Study reveals how ants talk to each other

 

So from this how did you deduce that I believe that ants talk to humans? Clearly says "Study reveals how ants talk to each other". As for prophet Sulaiman(as), he understood the language of the animals, etc. It was an ability to him from Allah.

 

16. And Sulaiman (Solomon) inherited (the knowledge of) Dawud (David). He said: "O mankind! We have been taught the language of birds, and on us have been bestowed all things. This, verily, is an evident grace (from Allah).

 

"17. And there were gathered before Sulaiman (Solomon) his hosts of jinns and men, and birds, and they all were set in battle order (marching forwards).

 

18. Till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: "O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Sulaiman (Solomon) and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not."

 

19. So he [sulaiman (Solomon)] smiled, amused at her speech and said: "My Lord! Inspire and bestow upon me the power and ability that I may be grateful for Your Favours which You have bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may do righteous good deeds that will please You, and admit me by Your Mercy among Your righteous slaves."

 

http://islamicemirat...l-the-ants.html

 

But anyway, I'm not continuing this with you anymore. First you need to acknowledge what the Muslims have achieved scientifically in the last 1000 years and that Muslims are NOT hostile or suspicious towards science or else you are just a troll. Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is silly?

 

if you mean Jinns, then it only show how little you know about my relgion and the world we live in.

 

 

This is Islamic exorcism, i have also preformed this many years, so i know what i talk about,

 

THIS IS ONLY WAY TO CREATE PARANORMAL ACTIVITY WHEN YOU WANT TO START IT, ONLY TROUGH IslamIC EXORCISM

 

Have you considered that people are playing a cruel joke on you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you considered that people are playing a cruel joke on you?

 

what are you talking about, i have preformed exoricism on others and even myself, so how can i make jokes with myself? tell me

 

i would know if it is joke or not if i preformed it on myself. Jane , i know what i am talking about but you dont know what you are talking about beacuse this is unkown terittory for you, and when it is uknown terittory then you get lost.

 

I said again, with Islamic exorcism you can start paranormal activity, can this be normal event, when someone read exorcist verses in quran and the patient affected by Jinns start to feel different stuff on his body even though nobody touches him, not only that he can also fall down even though nobody touches him. I have never seen before that words can have physical impact on humans, i did even know this before 2002.

 

I have experience in this field so i know what is going on here... :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have asked me why I think some Muslims are adverse to science and what makes me think that Muslims are suspicious or even hostile towards science.

 

I am not able to prove years of reading, which has led me to this conclusion, so here are some short articles on what Muslims think about how they see how they are being affected by science and what they have devised as protection mechanisms.

 

I'll give 2 examples from:

https://sites.google...ce-or-scientism

http://www.oxfordisl...11_science.html

 

The notion of worldview is where Islam's holistic view of the universe runs into conflict with the secular, materialistic, and reductionist notions of the natural world. The latter is not science in any proper sense of the term but what some have called "scientism," an ideological construction of science as an alternative worldview.

Scientism seeks to supplant the religious view of the universe and reduce religion to ethics without a claim over the nature of reality. This explains in part why modern atheism makes frequent use of scientism to substantiate its claims against religious faith. The debate as to whether Islam and science can be reconciled is not so much about science as it is about the unsubstantiated claims of scientism and its dubious philosophical arguments.

 

science has unhinged itself from the service of religion, and now purports to serve itself, expanding to constitute a new “scientism” where rationality and empiricism both form the most absolute basis for belief, and revelation is demoted into the scientifically unnecessary but ultimately personal and subjective realm.

 

scientism desperately wishes science itself to become the absolute source of understanding age-old questions on the purposes of existence as well as morality. Thus, from the Muslim believer’s point of view, unbelief forms the basis of modern civilization

 

It is thus no surprise that Islam actively opposes the underpinnings of modern science

 

They also focus on the evils of a godless science which demurs not to the Divine, but to the vicious desires of godless men

 

Science is usually hitched to the service of modern man, who in turn, has unhitched himself from the Divine in his zeal to gain mastery and power over the natural world.

 

Thus, Muslims cannot continue with a sense of inferiority vis-à-vis Western science.

 

 

These quotes demonstrate beautifully, how Muslim apologists, without ever bothering to get into the actual discussion about science vs religion, simply make up a new definition and go and hide behind it. They don't need to either know or study anything about anything scientific and can simply declare as valid what suits them and reject anything else that does not suit them.

 

Not reality itself, but the presentation and deception becomes the core function.

 

Example (not intended as base for a separate discussion here):

Mountains are described in the Koran as being stabilisers with roots (as described in the earlier Rig Veda)

For example in

13:3 And He it is Who spread out the earth and placed therein firm hills and flowing streams...

15:19 And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.

41:10 He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;

50:7 And the earth have We spread out, and have flung firm hills therein, and have caused of every lovely kind to grow thereon,

77:27 And placed therein high mountains and given you to drink sweet water therein and so on in many sentences.

 

People are not being directed to an allegorical reading, but are deceived by showing that the word "root" is present in the Koran as well as scientific literature in Geology.

The deception is that people such as Naik or Yahya don't mention the facts, just the lies. In Geology, humans have identified 5 types of mountains, only 1 of which has a root. None of them act as stabilisers - as can easily be seen by the recent earthquakes in Japan and Northern Italy.

So they go to the next stage of deception and declare they are not explicitly using the word earthquake, but the word shaking. Well, does the ground shake next to mountains? Yes, of course, so this further deception does nothing to contradict what happens in reality as described by science.

 

Please note: None of this has any impact on religion, the Koran or the existence of a god, but demonstrates that the Koran contains signs (ayat), which should not in every instance be taken literally, especially when the faulty interpretation of the signs in the Koran are in direct conflict with scientific facts.

 

Does this make it any clearer?

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have asked me why I think some Muslims are adverse to science and what makes me think that Muslims are suspicious or even hostile towards science.

 

I am not able to prove years of reading, which has led me to this conclusion, so here are some short articles on what Muslims think about how they see how they are being affected by science and what they have devised as protection mechanisms.

 

I'll give 2 examples from:

https://sites.google...ce-or-scientism

http://www.oxfordisl...11_science.html

 

 

 

These quotes demonstrate beautifully, how Muslim apologists, without ever bothering to get into the actual discussion about science vs religion, simply make up a new definition and go and hide behind it. They don't need to either know or study anything about anything scientific and can simply declare as valid what suits them and reject anything else that does not suit them.

 

Not reality itself, but the presentation and deception becomes the core function.

 

Example (not intended as base for a separate discussion here):

Mountains are described in the Koran as being stabilisers with roots (as described in the earlier Rig Veda)

For example in

13:3 And He it is Who spread out the earth and placed therein firm hills and flowing streams...

15:19 And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.

41:10 He placed therein firm hills rising above it, and blessed it and measured therein its sustenance in four Days, alike for (all) who ask;

50:7 And the earth have We spread out, and have flung firm hills therein, and have caused of every lovely kind to grow thereon,

77:27 And placed therein high mountains and given you to drink sweet water therein and so on in many sentences.

 

People are not being directed to an allegorical reading, but are deceived by showing that the word "root" is present in the Koran as well as scientific literature in Geology.

The deception is that people such as Naik or Yahya don't mention the facts, just the lies. In Geology, humans have identified 5 types of mountains, only 1 of which has a root. None of them act as stabilisers - as can easily be seen by the recent earthquakes in Japan and Northern Italy.

So they go to the next stage of deception and declare they are not explicitly using the word earthquake, but the word shaking. Well, does the ground shake next to mountains? Yes, of course, so this further deception does nothing to contradict what happens in reality as described by science.

 

Please note: None of this has any impact on religion, the Koran or the existence of a god, but demonstrates that the Koran contains signs (ayat), which should not in every instance be taken literally, especially when the faulty interpretation of the signs in the Koran are in direct conflict with scientific facts.

 

Does this make it any clearer?

 

 

 

 

B) The Quran on Mountains:

 

A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

ch1-1-b-img1.jpg

Figure 7: Mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground. (Earth, Press and Siever, p. 413.)

 

ch1-1-b-img2.jpg

Figure 8: Schematic section. The mountains, like pegs, have deep roots embedded in the ground. (Anatomy of the Earth, Cailleux, p. 220.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

 

ch1-1-b-img3.jpg

Figure 9: Another illustration shows how the mountains are peg-like in shape, due to their deep roots. (Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 158.) (Click on the image to enlarge it.)

This is how the Quran has described mountains. God has said in the Quran:

aqwas-ys.jpg Have We not made the earth as a bed, and the mountains as pegs? aqwas-ym.jpg (Quran, 78:6-7)

Modern earth sciences have proven that mountains have deep roots under the surface of the ground (see figure 9) and that these roots can reach several times their elevations above the surface of the ground.2 So the most suitable word to describe mountains on the basis of this information is the word ‘peg,’ since most of a properly set peg is hidden under the surface of the ground. The history of science tells us that the theory of mountains having deep roots was introduced only in the latter half of the nineteenth century.3

Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth.4 They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:

aqwas-ys.jpg And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you... aqwas-ym.jpg (Quran, 16:15)

Likewise, the modern theory of plate tectonics holds that mountains work as stabilizers for the earth. This knowledge about the role of mountains as stabilizers for the earth has just begun to be understood in the framework of plate tectonics since the late 1960’s.5

Could anyone during the time of the Prophet Muhammad salla.jpg have known of the true shape of mountains? ch1-1-b-img4.jpgCould anyone imagine that the solid massive mountain which he sees before him actually extends deep into the earth and has a root, as scientists assert? A large number of books of geology, when discussing mountains, only describe that part which is above the surface of the earth. This is because these books were not written by specialists in geology. However, modern geology has confirmed the truth of the Quranic verses.

 

_____________________________

Footnotes:

(1) Earth, Press and Siever, p. 435. Also see Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, p. 157. back.jpg

(2) The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, El-Naggar, p. 5. back.jpg

(3) The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, p. 5. back.jpg

(4) The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, pp. 44-45. back.jpg

(5) The Geological Concept of Mountains in the Quran, p. 5. back.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A book entitled Earth is a basic reference textbook in many universities around the world. One of its two authors is Professor Emeritus Frank Press. He was the Science Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter, and for 12 years was the President of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. His book says that mountains have underlying roots.1 These roots are deeply embedded in the ground, thus, mountains have a shape like a peg (see figures 7, 8, and 9).

 

How can I make you shut up?

How can I show you how idiotic your posts are?

How can I convince you that what you are doing is spreading lies?

 

Let's see.

The person Frank Press exists. His book exists. It's an ancient, old book from 1986.

 

The "miracle" is cited in various places, such as texts by Maurice Bucaille, Harun Yahya, Zakir Naik, El-Naggar etc. without any proof or substance. These guys forget the 4 other types of mountains and simply claim that because 1 type of mountain has roots, all types have roots. This is a not true and a lie.

 

Frank Press nowhere says that mountains have a function and are shaped like pegs. This is a lie. The captions under the diagrams have been deleted and replaced with text which is not in the original book. These are fakes.

 

Here are the originals:

http://imageshack.us...bldz4139ib.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...bldz4351mi.jpg/

 

Anyone can see that the captions provided by andalusi (andalusi) are faked.

 

Anyone can also see in the original book that Frank Press nowhere says that mountains have a function and stabilise anything or are shaped like pegs.

 

On the contrary:

Frank Press, in his book, Earth, categorically states that due to isostasy, erosion of the upper parts of a mountain results in the shifting of the entire mountain upwards, to counter the buoyancy and weight effect on the Earth's crust.

 

Anyone can check this and verify that andalusi (andalusi) is lying. Or at least his source is lying and he never checked it properly.

 

Not a single book in the scientific branch of Geology has confirmed the literal description of mountains as described in the Koran.

andalusi bases his posting on wishful thinking alone. There are no facts and no valid arguments for the literal interpretation, but only an allegorical description, of the shaping of our planet by the Muslim god.

 

If there are "A large number of books of geology" discussing a function of mountains, please provide the evidence.

 

Oh and before you rush off and look for evidence from the clown called El-Naggar, please realise that I asked him personally for proof for his obtaining a PH.D. in the UK and when he could not provide this, I wrote to his University, where they could not confirm anything he claims either. For me, a person claiming the moon was split into two pieces a few centuries ago literally, is a clown anyway, not a serious geologist.

 

And here is the video for those that prefer visual input rather than reading.

 

Edited by StopS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can I make you shut up?

How can I show you how idiotic your posts are?

How can I convince you that what you are doing is spreading lies?

 

Let's see.

The person Frank Press exists. His book exists. It's an ancient, old book from 1986.

 

The "miracle" is cited in various places, such as texts by Maurice Bucaille, Harun Yahya, Zakir Naik, El-Naggar etc. without any proof or substance. These guys forget the 4 other types of mountains and simply claim that because 1 type of mountain has roots, all types have roots. This is a not true and a lie.

 

Frank Press nowhere says that mountains have a function and are shaped like pegs. This is a lie. The captions under the diagrams have been deleted and replaced with text which is not in the original book. These are fakes.

 

Here are the originals:

http://imageshack.us...bldz4139ib.jpg/

http://imageshack.us...bldz4351mi.jpg/

 

Anyone can see that the captions provided by andalusi (andalusi) are faked.

 

Anyone can also see in the original book that Frank Press nowhere says that mountains have a function and stabilise anything or are shaped like pegs.

 

On the contrary:

Frank Press, in his book, Earth, categorically states that due to isostasy, erosion of the upper parts of a mountain results in the shifting of the entire mountain upwards, to counter the buoyancy and weight effect on the Earth's crust.

 

Anyone can check this and verify that andalusi (andalusi) is lying. Or at least his source is lying and he never checked it properly.

 

Not a single book in the scientific branch of Geology has confirmed the literal description of mountains as described in the Koran.

andalusi bases his posting on wishful thinking alone. There are no facts and no valid arguments for the literal interpretation, but only an allegorical description, of the shaping of our planet by the Muslim god.

 

If there are "A large number of books of geology" discussing a function of mountains, please provide the evidence.

 

Oh and before you rush off and look for evidence from the clown called El-Naggar, please realise that I asked him personally for proof for his obtaining a PH.D. in the UK and when he could not provide this, I wrote to his University, where they could not confirm anything he claims either. For me, a person claiming the moon was split into two pieces a few centuries ago literally, is a clown anyway, not a serious geologist.

 

And here is the video for those that prefer visual input rather than reading.

 

 

LIAR LIAR LIAR, HERE IS THE PROOF THAT QURAN IS TOTALLY TRUTH AND YOU ARE A LIAR

 

 

Science News...

 

Mountain Ranges Rise Much More Rapidly Than Geologists Expected

 

ScienceDaily (June 5, 2008) — Mountains may experience a "growth spurt" that can double their heights in as little as two to four million years--several times faster than the prevailing tectonic theory suggests

 

080605150912-large.jpg

Garzione high in the Andes, where she studies paleoelevation; the science of how mountains rise. (Credit: University of Rochester)

 

 

In the June 5 issue of Science, Carmala Garzione, associate professor of geology at the University of Rochester, says this rapid uplift means the current theory of plate tectonics will have to be substantially modified to include a process called "delamination."

 

The traditional method of estimating mountain growth is through understanding the history of folding and faulting of the Earth's upper crust. Under this paradigm, geologist have estimated that Andes rose gradually over the past 40 million years.

 

Garzione and her collaborators, John M. Eiler, professor of geochemistry at California Institute of Technology, and Prosenjit Ghosh, assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, used recently developed techniques to measure how ancient rainfall and surface temperature altered the chemical composition of a mountain's soil. By studying sedimentary basins in the high Andes Mountains, the team could determine when and at what altitude these ancient sediments were deposited. That record of altitude changes shows that the Andes Mountains rose slowly for tens of millions of years, but then suddenly lifted much faster between 10 and 6 million years ago.

 

The work of one of Garzione's post-doctoral research fellows, Gregory D. Hoke, corroborates the swift-rise theory and shows that not just the mountains, but a broad region more than 350 miles wide rose to some degree with the Andes. In research soon to be published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Hoke describes his findings on how rivers carved deep canyons into the flanks of the Andes as the mountain range rose. By dating the incisions and mapping the depth and extent of the canyons, Hoke shows that the surface uplift that occurred in the sedimentary basin where Garzione took her measurements must have happened across the entire width of the Andes Mountain range.

 

Garzione and her colleagues show that with the addition to their new findings, a broad range of geologic indicators, including the history of folding and faulting, erosion, volcanic eruptions, and sediment accumulation suggest a hotly debated tectonic process called delamination likely at work, says Garzione. Although delamination has been proposed for decades, Garzione says it has been controversial because mechanical models of mountain building have a hard time reproducing it, and, until the new findings, there has been a lack of reliable paleoelevation measurements.

 

When oceanic and continental plates come together, geologists believe the continental crust buckles. On the surface, the buckling manifests itself as a rising mountain range, but beneath the crust, the buckling creates a heavy, high-density "root" that holds the crust down like an anchor, says Garzione. Conventional tectonic theory says that convection of the fluid mantle deep in the Earth slowly erodes this heavy root like a stream wearing down a rock, allowing mountains to gradually rise as the crust shortens and thickens.

 

However, according to Garzione, the delamination theory suggests that instead of eroding slowly away, the root heats up and oozes downward like a drop of molasses until it abruptly breaks free and sinks into the hot fluid mantle. The mountains above, suddenly free of the weight of the blob, would rush upward and, in the case of the Andes, lift from a height of less than two kilometers to about four kilometers in less than 4 million years.

 

Some of the broader implications of rapidly-rising mountain ranges are their effect on regional climate and evolution, says Garzione. She is currently working with paleontologists, Darin A. Croft, assistant professor of anatomy at Case Western Reserve University, and Bruce MacFadden, vertebrate paleontology curator and professor at the University of Florida, to address some of the questions surrounding how a quick-rising mountain range might affect regional climate and faunal diversity in South America, in the late Miocene period when the Andes rose.

 

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

 

 

ch1-1-b-img2-big.jpg

 

On the surface, the buckling manifests itself as a rising mountain range, but beneath the crust, the buckling creates a heavy, high-density "root" that holds the crust down like an anchor, says Garzione.

 

Compare this with quran:

 

Mountains roots = pegs

 

78:6 Have We not made the earth as a cradle

7 and the mountains as pegs?

 

how dows pegs look like when they are rooted into the ground

 

IDH-15-9-15-6-1.jpg

 

PEGS-7INCH-STEEL.jpg

 

So pegs are like roots in the ground, exactly what quran says

 

 

وَأَلْقَىٰ فِي الْأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَنْ تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ وَأَنْهَارًا وَسُبُلًا لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَِ

Waalqa fee alardi rawasiya an tameeda bikum waanharan wasubulan laAAallakum tahtadoona

 

16:15 And He(God) placed mountains as anchors in the earth so that it may not shake along with you, and streams and roads for you to find course.

 

 

Rawasy

Arabic (رواسي) "mountains, at anchor, stable, fixed"

 

http://folkname.com/name/29777/Rawasy

 

from translator website

 

رواسي would describe "anchors".....

 

http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to...7-marinas.html

 

 

So we see that there is 3 scientific miracles in two verses

 

1. mountains are rooted like pegs

2. Mountain's peg/root is like anchor

3. It holds earth crust down , so it not shake or moves

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LIAR LIAR LIAR, HERE IS THE PROOF THAT QURAN IS TOTALLY TRUTH AND YOU ARE A LIAR

 

 

 

So we see that there is 3 scientific miracles in two verses

 

1. mountains are rooted like pegs

2. Mountain's peg/root is like anchor

3. It holds earth crust down , so it not shake or moves

 

Ok, so it's useless trying to get some sense into your head and I will have to admit once again that you are a hopeless case. You also insist on playing stupid.

 

You bring one misquote, where I show you that what you said is not true. And because you are wrong you call me a liar.

 

Now you bring the next text. If I show you that it is not what you think it is am I lying again?

 

Have you never read the Koran? Does your god want you, a devout Muslim, to insult others?

 

Allah loveth not the utterance of harsh speech save by one who hath been wronged. Allah is ever Nearer, Knower. 4:148

 

Do not walk on the earth in snobbish style. 17:37

 

Be modest in thy bearing and lower your voice. In the harshest of all voices is the voice of the donkey/. 31:19

 

Now, I will show you why you again did not understand what this is about and this will be the last time I will ever engage in any exchange with you.

 

1. This article is about "delamination" and mountain growth, not initial mountain formation.

2. It is a suggestion, not a fact, which is still considered controversial.

3. They show how mountains "rose slowly for tens of millions of years, but then suddenly lifted much faster between 10 and 6 million years ago"

4. It addresses only 1 out of 5 methods of mountain formation.

5. The difference in her hypothesis is that the "high-density "root" that holds the crust down like an anchor" does not erode but melt, which still causes the mountains to rise due to isostacy.

6. You did not read the sentence following your highlighted one: erodes this heavy root like a stream wearing down a rock, allowing mountains to gradually rise (which means they move, along with the crust)

 

Summary:

Again, when you read the text it says the opposite of what is in the Koran.

Again, you fail to grasp the process.

Again, you just cling to single words.

Again, you don't understand geology or isostacy or mountain formation and project your ignorance into posts such as this.

Again, you are embarrassing yourself.

And lastly, you again ignore reality, because if what is in the Koran regarding mountain formation would be literally true, why is it not mentioned in all text books? It is not mentioned anywhere except your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. This article is about "delamination" and mountain growth, not initial mountain formation.

 

mountain growth = mountain formation

 

Again, when you read the text it says the opposite of what is in the Koran.

 

like what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another little snippet of information, why I consider Muslims to be less interested in science and don't understand why:

 

Japan has 5000 scientists/m, all 49 Muslim countries combined 230/m. According to the Islamic Research Foundation International, Russia has 40 times more scientists, engineers, and technicians compared with the Muslim countries.

 

http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1_50/transfer_of_science_and_technolo.htm

 

 

Islamic countries, as a whole, have approximately 275 researchers per million population against 850 per million in the developed West.

 

http://islamicvoice.com/september.2001/book.htm

 

 

 

ORGANISATION OF IslamIC COOPERATION:

The availability of abundant and highly qualified researchers is an essential condition to foster innovation and promote the scientific and technological development of a country. However, figures indicate that OIC member countries, on average, fall well behind the world average in terms of researchers per million people: 451 vs. 1,507, respectively.

The gap is much larger when compared to the EU that has an average of 4,481 researchers per million people and some other developed countries like Iceland, Finland, and Norway (see Figure 1).

 

http://www.sesric.org/files/article/436.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another little snippet of information, why I consider Muslims to be less interested in science and don't understand why:

 

Japan has 5000 scientists/m, all 49 Muslim countries combined 230/m. According to the Islamic Research Foundation International, Russia has 40 times more scientists, engineers, and technicians compared with the Muslim countries.

I suppose one could say that countries that have been heavily-industrialized since the 1800s output more scientists than developing or undeveloped nations. It is much easier for a country with well-established scientific institutions and laboratories to produce more scientists and scientific research than countries with very few resources to devote to such research. I wouldn't expect much scientific output from a country such as Chad, for example.

 

But I would imagine that you're trying to get at "why" these lesser-developed countries didn't develop in parallel to Western, traditionally Christian countries. After all, many scientific discoveries do happen independently in locations far from each other. I think the Enlightenment helped tremendously in the advancement of knowledge in the West, but that required thinkers to challenge religious traditions and the like, and that mindset probably dates back at least to the ancient Greeks.

 

I remember watching a documentary called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" which puts forth the idea that Europe became dominant in the world due to a combination of factors such as climate, available grain varieties, draft animals, etc. Most other parts of the world lacked the combination that Europe had and exploited, allowing it to advance beyond other cultures starting in the colonial period. I think the only other place in the world with similar advantages was China, which was ahead of Europe for centuries, but followed a different mindset than that of the Greeks and Romans, which eventually caused it to fall behind due to hubris or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×