Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your rancor against the Quran will not impede others from studying it and its interpretation. [باللغة العربية
Disagreeing with you or a website does not mean I have rancor against the Qur'an or Islam. I was very polite to you for a very long time in this thread. I just wanted to see if there was any other support for your ideas and you didn't seem to have any.
I disagree with the Qur'an and Islam on some things, but on another thread I gently defended Muhammad. There are many Muslims I find admirable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eanassir
And I think you belong to some Islamic and Arabic countries (almost from Iraq), and you are not a Muslim; it may be you are a communist or not, but certainly you are an atheist
Okay I guess finally it's happened, I've been compared to or accused of being a communist atheist. I was once called a Fascist or a Nazi, but the only Left-wing thing I'd ever been called was a PC nitwit. Now I have my first Communist accusation. You are too funny man!
Anyway just because someone's not a Muslim, and doesn't plan to become one, doesn't mean they're an atheist. This theory about mountains not being of Earth is actually somewhat interesting. Your explanation on a meteorite hitting the Earth at just the right angle and the same speed that the Earth goes around the Sun was intriguing. However some of the things you say seem so outside the mainstream of science that I wanted a respectable scientific source for the theory and you basically just told me "read the Qur'an." This is like if I said you should accept some scientific statement because it's in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. It is not reasonable to ask a non-Muslim to believe in something purely because it's in the Qur'an or a commentary of the Qur'an.
Basically mainstream thinking as I understand is that mountains are formed from the collision of tectonic plates and from vulcanism. Now I'll ask for the last time do you have any mainstream scientific source to argue for your assertion that the majority of mountains are not from the Earth. For that matter do you have any non-Islamic source for it at all? Can you even find a Catholic saint, Buddhist monk, or Jewish rabbi that supports this theory? Because once again not everyone in the world is a Muslim or ever will be a Muslim.
(And yes I'm aware that technically Islam means being under God so technically everyone is a Muslim, but what I am saying is not everyone believes in the Qur'an or the religion thereof)
I'm not convinced that many Muslim scientists even believe in what you are saying or interpret the Qur'an as you do as you don't seem to use any for a source. I haven't read enough of the following to see if it agrees with you or not.
First of all, metorities have had a minimal earth imact in adding topography,minerals or as some scientists believe water. They played no apparent role in the formation of mountains.
It is correct that scientists and geologists have no such idea: that most of mountains are not from Earth in origin; they are the portions of some planets that were broken up in the past, then were attracted by the gravity of Earth and the rest of the present planets.
The same destination will be of our present Earth and the present planets, when they will be destroyed in the next Doomsday, they will become many pieces roaming in the space until they will be attractted by the future newly formed planets, and they will fall on the future planets to form the mounatins there and to transport life to those planets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DASULAR17
Yes plate tectonics and volcanoes certainly produced most mountains not
withstanding the Hymalayan range (hepled along by collision of continents.
Certainly such factors as the volcanoes and the plate tectonics play an important role in forming many of the mountains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DASULAR17
Anyway, astroids did hit earth many leaving craters hundreds of miles in diameter. The largest astroid impact craters were difficult to locate,measure and identify the epicenters.
The astroids formed valley's not mountains and below the valley's a treasure cove of minerals we mine today.
The craters attributed to asteroids are in fact due to comet impacts.
The Universe and the Quran 3 (http://www.quran-ayat.com/u/new_page_3.htm#The_Comet_of_Arizona - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DASULAR17
A breakthrough was a mineral known as anhydrite (a mineral isolated or with origins from space).
Anhydrite was found along bases and cliffs of mountians,but scientists have identified the source as ice age glaciers causing deposits to be displaced to river banks and many surfaces.
Anhydrites origins are mostly localized. The last major glaciers (not including modern day pole glaciers) were receding 7000- 15,000 years ago.
This anhydrite found along the bases and cliffs of mountains adds more to the origin of most mountains from the space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DASULAR17
God created all of the elements necessary for earths formation.
I was very polite to you for a very long time in this thread.
You are too funny man!
You are the funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Your explanation on a meteorite hitting the Earth at just the right angle
I didn't say this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Can you even find a Catholic saint, Buddhist monk, or Jewish rabbi that supports this theory?
Why didn't you say a Mandaean also?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Because once again not everyone in the world is a Muslim or ever will be a Muslim.
No one is clinging to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
I'm not convinced that many Muslim scientists even believe in what you are saying or interpret the Qur'an as you do as you don't seem to use any for a source.
This is right that many Muslims do not agree to this; but this meaning of the mountais were cast in the earth has been cited in many ayat of the Quran; and the Arabic word repeated in many of these ayat is ألقى i.e. "cast" in English.
Like this aya 16: 15
وَأَلْقَى فِي الأَرْضِ رَوَاسِيَ أَن تَمِيدَ بِكُمْ وَأَنْهَارًا وَسُبُلاً لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ
The explanation:
(And He cast [mountains] that landed on the earth; lest it should irregularly move with you; and [made on it] rivers and ways; that you may find your way.)
The Universe and the Quran 2 (http://www.quran-ayat.com/u/new_page_2.htm#Mountains - broken link)
Hmm that was one of the few good responses I thought I read from you. If you didn't say it I guess you never had an interesting response to a question from my perspective.
Still on some level I guess it was rude of me to interrupt you. You're apparently happy about all this stuff and you want to talk about it no matter what response you get. Sure I think most of it's nonsense, but it clearly means something to you. Besides disputing it clearly does no good, particularly as your English is apparently pretty poor.
So if you're enjoying doing this I guess you should keep it up until they close the thread. That's maybe a condescending and "passive-aggressive" thing to say, but it is also true in a way.
Hmm that was one of the few good responses I thought I read from you. If you didn't say it I guess you never had an interesting response to a question from my perspective.
What I said is that the effect of the impact a falling object depends on many factors like angle of falling: whether that was vertical or oblique.
If the impact comes vertical then the effect of the impact will be more than the oblique.
And if both objects are moving in or about the same direction, the effect will also be less.
Moreover, the Earth at that time spun more quickly than it is now; so the repelling force will add to lessening the effect of the impact.
In addition, if the falling object is still somewhat hot, this also will decrease the gravity attraction of the falling body to the attracting one.
And the crust of the Earth was not so rigid and not so thick and was more soft which absorbed the effect of the falling of the portions that became the mountains.
The indication of that is the layers of the earth below the mountain are in continuation with the layers outside the base of the mountain.
Since the proto-Earth was most likely formed from accretion of debris, elemental and otherwise, during the early formation of the solar system, the source material for all the earth did come from off-planet. Where else, since the earth was just a localized crowded debris field, prior to any semblance of a planet. The proto-Earth went through a lot of bombardment, similar to the moon - which is still evident on the moon, since the moon lacks erosional mechanisms and no plate tectonics, to erase the accumulation of bombardment craters. Go back even further. Those elements were formed through stars going nova. Every atom of the earth, including the atoms that make up us, was from stars going supernova. That is how the heavier elements formed. In that sense you are right. You may want to rework this particular hermeneutic. To think that the mountains, as we have them today, were dropped out of the heavens whole-cloth is just ignorant. The mountains we have today have been recycled a few times. Just look at the Himalayas. They used to be the sea floor between the Asian and Indian plates that, as they collided, got squeezed up out of the basin that was between them. Or consider how the Rockies formed in the US where you have plates subducting under other plates. See: Laramide orogeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Similar reworkings of the plates are well documented and measured.
It is correct that scientists and geologists have no such idea: that most of mountains are not from Earth in origin; they are the portions of some planets that were broken up in the past, then were attracted by the gravity of Earth and the rest of the present planets....
Certainly such factors as the volcanoes and the plate tectonics play an important role in forming many of the mountains.
Here you write that most of our mountains that we have today were not formed on the Earth, and then you write that many mountains such as the Himalayas were formed by plate tectonics or volcanism. So... which mountains were not formed this way and were dropped here "as is." How can you tell the difference?
i think i'll start a thread that discusses the overwhelming evidence that the earth is flat & the moon is made of green cheese. it always amuses me when people try to use science to disprove science & support religious beliefs. this guy is almost as good as the creationists & their 10,000 year old earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
