The Miracle Of Iron !!

[mo3taz3nbar]

That's not a response to my observation that the three storey universe is the model that shows everywhere in the quaran and bible. That's like saying, "you're right but I'll convince you later" and completely ignore these facts that are so flagrantly unscientific.

am discussing different things with different members as soon as the conversation slow down a little i will open the thread about the scientific facts in the Quran.plz till that i will not be able to talk in details about this issue so have patience i will discuss all in details in the thread i will open (and also this is not the subject here)

But this was 600 AD. It was the dark middle ages, they had no clue at all about the findings of modern science. If there really was science than there would have been the brilliant symmetrical principles of nature like that of relativity. They're totally absent. So don't stretch your luck with dubious interpretation of vague sentences scribbled on all kinds of material by various followers deleted from historical reference that are said to reference to scientific facts only after science has stated them.

am not saying that they had brilliant symmetrical principles of nature they didnt have any tools to prove anything am saying that the Quran contains scientific facts that was discovered later when we have the tools to know about them

You are making all kinds of hilarious assumptions on earth formation:
- That first there was an earth without iron and later the iron was added. That is not scientific fact, it opposes any serious scientific theory on earth formation.

i posted two links that prove what i said if the links are wrong plz inform me

Also you seem to add in the disclaimer that they didn't know how to write it down because they had no reference from experience. Of course that is true, but with that you are seriously discrediting the divine inspiration clause that believers use all the time to "ensure" circular reasoning.

i didnt mean that at all i was aiming that its pretty clear that when something come from the space you say it fell down to earth
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_there_n...n_in_space

You are restating what I feared you meant: The quran is mallaeable to doctrines of man and not the word of god.

i think i have a little misunderstanding of the word doctorines. what i meant is when someone say that jesus is God it must be written in the scriptures or his claim will be meaningless and it will be clear that he is just saying things from his head.so when a religion face the problem that what they claim is not written in their scriptures they start adding it by themselves

[Purple Rabbit]

That's not a response to my observation that the three storey universe is the model that shows everywhere in the quaran and bible. That's like saying, "you're right but I'll convince you later" and completely ignore these facts that are so flagrantly unscientific.

am discussing different things with different members as soon as the conversation slow down a little i will open the thread about the scientific facts in the Quran.plz till that i will not be able to talk in details about this issue so have patience i will discuss all in details in the thread i will open (and also this is not the subject here)

So the validity of your argument about scientific statements in the quran is not subject here? Than what is your subject here?

But this was 600 AD. It was the dark middle ages, they had no clue at all about the findings of modern science. If there really was science than there would have been the brilliant symmetrical principles of nature like that of relativity. They're totally absent. So don't stretch your luck with dubious interpretation of vague sentences scribbled on all kinds of material by various followers deleted from historical reference that are said to reference to scientific facts only after science has stated them.

am not saying that they had brilliant symmetrical principles of nature they didnt have any tools to prove anything am saying that the Quran contains scientific facts that was discovered later when we have the tools to know about them

So we agree on the fact there are no brilliant scientific observations in the quran, the writers were just too ignorant to describe modern scientific facts, and that only in hindsight some statements were selected for reinterpretation to refer to scientific facts. In fact by this you have admitted that it is special pleading. What else should I add to that?

You are making all kinds of hilarious assumptions on earth formation:
- That first there was an earth without iron and later the iron was added. That is not scientific fact, it opposes any serious scientific theory on earth formation.

i posted two links that prove what i said if the links are wrong plz inform me

Don't refer to sites that try to address science at the level of toddlers and conclusively fail at that. If you think there's no difference between the concept in physics of strings and weaven ropes as in your shoe, than don't build an argument on it and don't refer to sites with that kind of mindless crap on it. If you wanna talk science, talk science. I can handle it, can you?

Also you seem to add in the disclaimer that they didn't know how to write it down because they had no reference from experience. Of course that is true, but with that you are seriously discrediting the divine inspiration clause that believers use all the time to "ensure" circular reasoning.

i didnt mean that at all i was aiming that its pretty clear that when something come from the space you say it fell down to earth
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_there_n...n_in_space

Your response doesn't match at all to the argument. Can you detect that yourself or do you need help?

You are restating what I feared you meant: The quran is mallaeable to doctrines of man and not the word of god.

i think i have a little misunderstanding of the word doctorines. what i meant is when someone say that jesus is God it must be written in the scriptures or his claim will be meaningless and it will be clear that he is just saying things from his head.so when a religion face the problem that what they claim is not written in their scriptures they start adding it by themselves

I totally agree and to me it is a quite convincing argument that scriptures cannot go as evidence on their own. How does that help the point you are trying to make about the quran?

[mo3taz3nbar]

So the validity of your argument about scientific statements in the quran is not subject here? Than what is your subject here?

the subject here is the verse about the iron and its not my subject some guy wrote this and left the thread so i was just clarifying things

So we agree on the fact there are no brilliant scientific observations in the quran, the writers were just too ignorant to describe modern scientific facts, and that only in hindsight some statements were selected for reinterpretation to refer to scientific facts.

i didnt say this. am saying that in the time of muhammed(pbuh) they didnt have the tools to know these things and this is a proof that this is not his word but god word as it was impossible to know about a lot of things about universe in their time

Don't refer to sites that try to address science at the level of toddlers and conclusively fail at that. If you think there's no difference between the concept in physics of strings and weaven ropes as in your shoe, than don't build an argument on it and don't refer to sites with that kind of mindless crap on it. If you wanna talk science, talk science. I can handle it, can you?

if the information i told from the links is wrong correct me and give me the right link

Your response doesn't match at all to the argument. Can you detect that yourself or do you need help?

lol sorry about that i was answering you about the space having no up and down

mo3taz3nbar Wrote:

You are restating what I feared you meant: The quran is mallaeable to doctrines of man and not the word of god.
i think i have a little misunderstanding of the word doctorines. what i meant is when someone say that jesus is God it must be written in the scriptures or his claim will be meaningless and it will be clear that he is just saying things from his head.so when a religion face the problem that what they claim is not written in their scriptures they start adding it by themselves
I totally agree and to me it is a quite convincing argument that scriptures cannot go as evidence on their own. How does that help the point you are trying to make about the quran?

you are not matching quotes with the right post also i think

[Purple Rabbit]

So the validity of your argument about scientific statements in the quran is not subject here? Than what is your subject here?

the subject here is the verse about the iron and its not my subject some guy wrote this and left the thread so i was just clarifying things

What did you clarify?

This was your statement:

this is how core was formed:

The Earth's core was formed early in the creation of the planet as molten iron sank toward the center. As the planet cooled, some molten iron began to solidify to create the core, which is kept solid by enormous pressure.
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/coreLDCol.html

and this is how iron get to the earth:

Generations of stars were born in gas clouds and died in explosive novas. The conditions in those novas produced the heavier elements we have with us today.
http://geology.about.com/od/nutshells/a/...hbirth.htm

Gravity ensures that the heavier stuff is collected at the center of gravity in an accretion process of planetary formation.
Now where was it sent down? "hey you piece of iron, go down to earth and do your thing" Gravity needs no command or commander. Iron need no command or commander. These are anthropomorphic views you are projecting on a natural process that functions quite on its own.

When you say that the iron got to earth through supernova explosions you make two mistakes:

1) You leave out that all the heavy stuff that earth is made of, was created through nucleo synthesis in stars and in the supernova explosions that followed. Carbon, nickel, uranium have been created this way. Where in the quran does it say that it all was "sent down" with the iron? Leaving that out suggests a special role for the iron. But there is no special role for iron in this process.

2) You cannot picture this as if there already was an earth ready to receive the iron. The current view is that the earth formed by accretion in a cloud of dust. So all this matter in roughly the same period of time condensed into a proto-earth through a natural process. There was no earth before that to sent the iron to.

[Darwinian]

It may be that the reason the Qu'ran says that iron was 'sent down' to the Earth is because at that time people knew that occasionally rocks (meteors) fell from the sky and many of these would be primarily composed of iron. To people who simply knew nothing about the formation of the Earth or the solar system it would probably seem quite rational to assume that this is where iron comes from.

And if your name is Muhammed and you are creating a new religion to give you power over the masses then why not use this as example of Allah's power, sending iron to the Earth.

[downbeatplumb]

Just to muddy the water, some iron in the earth core is thought to have come here from a massive collision in the early solar system between the earth and a minor planet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAx22sEOU5A

[Darwinian]

I may be wrong and I'd have to look into it further (and I can't be bothered) but I don't think that the collision between Earth MKI and Thea actually provided any extra iron to the Earth as the impact, while completely liquifiying the early Earth back to a droplet of melt only stripped off the outer crust of the Earth.

This impact of course then helped to create Earth MKII which is now where we live and also formed the moon from all the debris.

Although I stand to be corrected.

[Purple Rabbit]

Just to muddy the water, some iron in the earth core is thought to have come here from a massive collision in the early solar system between the earth and a minor planet.

In fact accretion is still going on with iron-based meteorites. But it would be a far stretch to claim that a vague incomplete sentence with high antropomorphic content is anywhere near scientific fact.

[downbeatplumb]

I may be wrong and I'd have to look into it further (and I can't be bothered) but I don't think that the collision between Earth MKI and Thea actually provided any extra iron to the Earth as the impact, while completely liquifiying the early Earth back to a droplet of melt only stripped off the outer crust of the Earth.

This impact of course then helped to create Earth MKII which is now where we live and also formed the moon from all the debris.

Although I stand to be corrected.

This from wikipedia

quote:

In astronomical terms, the impact would have been of moderate velocity. Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle. Theia's iron core sank into the young Earth's core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

You have been corrected.

[Darwinian]

Yes, that sounds right. This is why the moon has no iron and we have lots! The moon is therefore an extension of the Earth's crust.

But of course this is all part of the formation of the Earth and you cannot use this example as iron being sent to the Earth as before this impact the 'Earth' was basically a different planet. In a way you could say that Theia and whatever you want to call the planet that was here before are the parents of the Earth.

Anyway, the Qu'ran saying that iron was 'sent down' to the Earth is simply a classic example of assumptions made based on the knowledge of the time. i.e. you see rocks made of iron fall from the sky and you assume that this is how all the iron got here. And if you are prone to belief in magical deities then you further assume that he sent them down as a gift for you.