The Quran on Seas and Rivers:

[alex sam]

The Quran on Seas and Rivers:​

Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density.1 For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water. When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth2 (see figure 13).

Figure 13: The Mediterranean sea water as it enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics, because of the barrier that distinguishes between them. Temperatures are in degrees Celsius (C°). (Marine Geology, Kuenen, p. 43, with a slight enhancement.)

Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.

The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet and that they do not transgress.God has said
(He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress). (Quran, 55:19-20)

But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier. God has said in the Quran:

(He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter. And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition). (Quran, 25:53)

One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been discovered that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.”3 This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water4 (see figure 14

Figure 14: Longitudinal section showing salinity (parts per thousand ‰) in an estuary. We can see here the partition (zone of separation) between the fresh and the salt water. (Introductory Oceanography, Thurman, p. 301, with a slight enhancement.)

This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc. The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).

thank you

 

[skaught]

 

[Bells]

Blah blah.. etc.. etc..

Sooo Alex! Do you have a link to all of this?

Now, from what I can see, you have copied and pasted the whole OP, pictures included, from another site.

Have you read this site's rules and paid particular attention to the bits about plagiarism?

I would suggest you do. Failure to cite your sources and plagiarism on this scale will result in a ban from this site.

 

[iceaura]

That's been known to fishermen all over the planet since the invention of the boat, if not before.

Eskimos and Inuit, Polynesians and Vikings, Japanese pearl divers and Kwakuitl salmon spearers, Malaysian net fishers and probably every other reasonably sophisticated estuary fishing people, have thousands of years of direct experience dealing with the boundaries between fresh and salt water at the mouths of the rivers of the continents.

Are we supposed to assume the Arabs were the least observant, least skilled, least thoughtful and perceptive people in the world? We just got done with a thread wherein some fundie claimed that the Arabs didn't know it was dark at the bottom of the ocean until some angel told Muhammad. I mean, damn - - -

 

[Dywyddyr]

Already been shown to be wrong.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99739

 

[(Q)]

One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?

The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).

Looks like you answered your own question.

 

[Big Chiller]

Already been shown to be wrong.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=99739

That wasn't shown to be wrong, only that the debater is weak or doesn't want to continue debating.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That wasn't shown to be wrong, only that the debater is weak or doesn't want to continue debating.

It was shown to wrong, references were given that showed that it could have (and should have) been known outside of "revelation".

 

[Big Chiller]

I don't know what you're talking about. How does something being known outside of revelation prove it to be wrong?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I don't know what you're talking about. How does something being known outside of revelation and prove it to be wrong?

If it's known, or knowable, outside of revelation it doesn't prove revelation wrong.
It just proves that it wasn't a revelation.
The claim, in this thread AND the other was that "what is stated in the Quran was otherwise unknown until science told us recently" is false since it was known. By many peoples.
Therefore the the claim itself (that it was revelation) is wrong.

 

[Big Chiller]

The claim, in this thread AND the other was that "what is stated in the Quran was otherwise unknown until science told us recently" is false since it was known.

I disagree that something similar to the big bang theory, the earth is round, lack of oxygen at high altitudes, the fetus being a clump of clinging flesh in it's early stages could be said to be precisely known by Arabs prior to revelatiton 1,400 years ago. Whether one believes in these is another matter.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I disagree that something similar to the big bang theory, the earth is round, lack of oxygen at high altitudes, the fetus being a clump of clinging flesh in it's early stages could be said to be precisely known by Arabs prior to revelatiton 1,400 years ago. Whether one believes in these is another matter.

Except that, of those that were knowable, they aren't exactly mentioned in the Quran except as particular interpretations in the light of modern knowledge. (Oh, and the outright wrong claims of course).

We've had threads on ALL of those in the last 6 months or so. Do a search and read them before making these incorrect claims again.
We usually prefer to wait a reasonable period of time before repeating a thread topic.

 

[scifes]

If it's known, or knowable, outside of revelation it doesn't prove revelation wrong.
It just proves that it wasn't a revelation.
The claim, in this thread AND the other was that "what is stated in the Quran was otherwise unknown until science told us recently" is false since it was known. By many peoples.
Therefore the the claim itself (that it was revelation) is wrong.

false.
if it was hardly knowable to certain people in the right places and the right times, it doesn't mean it was knowable at all for the one who made the revelation, which is the case.

also, you foolishly claim that it was known, prove it.
i can't prove that it wasn't known, but its absence in all human recordings, including scientific ones, which should mention it were it known, clearly and simply mean that it was NOT known, so i once again ask you, prove your wild claims.

it is even said that jaques costoue the french marineologist, or some other french guy, was bouncing with joy when he discovered the barrier, and it is said* he became a muslim when he found it written in an illiterate desert dweller's "diary" 14 hundred years ago.

if the revelation was knowable loosely speaking, but not knowable for the revelation source, then the calim stands, and it does.

then you casually pass by and contribute your 2 cents;

Already been shown to be wrong.

when all facts and backed up arguments say otherwise. i'm offended.

*you can make your pick:
- http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/TheQuranandNewZealandGiantSquid.htm#Jacques Cousteau Died as a Muslim
- http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/cousteau.html

 

[Big Chiller]

Except that, of those that were knowable, they aren't exactly mentioned in the Quran except as particular interpretations in the light of modern knowledge. (Oh, and the outright wrong claims of course).

Interpretations they are but they are nothing like the so-called bible code, rather they are plain statements. (Why don't you provide me a link of the wrong claims or quote some so I can evaluate them, also there's a possibility the wrong claims are not from the Quran.)

We've had threads on ALL of those in the last 6 months or so. Do a search and read them before making these incorrect claims again.
We usually prefer to wait a reasonable period of time before repeating a thread topic.

Dare I say poisoning the well fallacy.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Interpretations they are but they are nothing like the so-called bible code, rather they are plain statements.

But they aren't "plain statements". And the bible code (which admittedly is a complete fallacy) is nothing to do with this topic.

(Why don't you provide me a link of the wrong claims or quote some so I can evaluate them

Why don't you do a search?
I gave a link to one thread, my interest extends only so far.
Try Yosef's posts, he was fond of raising this sort of thing. And possibly Scifes'.

also there's a possibility the wrong claims are not from the Quran.)

Feeble excuse. Do you think that wasn't checked when the claims were made?

Dare I say poisoning the well fallacy.

You can say whatever you like, but, since these particular questions have already been raised and dealt with "poisoning the well" is an incorrect claim. I suggest you actually check what that fallacy constitutes:

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

Wiki.
The information is not "pre-emptively selected" in this case since it is EXACTLY these questions that were raised and answered.

 

[Big Chiller]

The information is not "pre-emptively selected" in this case since it is EXACTLY these questions that were raised and answered.

I think I can guess how these claims were addressed by people who are biased against them.

Interpretations they are but they are nothing like the so-called bible code, rather they are plain statements.

But they aren't "plain statements". And the bible code (which admittedly is a complete fallacy) is nothing to do with this topic.

Just trying to clarify that they are not hidden codes but interpretations of statements.

 

[Dywyddyr]

false.
if it was hardly knowable to certain people in the right places and the right times, it doesn't mean it was knowable at all for the one who made the revelation, which is the case.

As was stated in that debate: if you're claiming that the Arabs didn't know it at the time then you are also making the claim that they, out all the people that used the seas, were particularly unobservant.
Or, in this case, that whoever wrote the Quran never met or spoke to anyone who had seen this.

also, you foolishly claim that it was known, prove it.

Read the thread, And this time don't ignore the relevant parts.

i can't prove that it wasn't known, but its absence in all human recordings, including scientific ones, which should mention it were it known, clearly and simply mean that it was NOT known, so i once again ask you, prove your wild claims.

You'd first have to show that it was indeed absent in ALL scientific recordings. (And also that it SHOULD have been, i.e. that it was actually considered worthy of recording if it had been known).
Your turn.

if the revelation was knowable loosely speaking, but not knowable for the revelation source, then the calim stands, and it does.

Then you would have to also assume extreme isolation of the source, and a particular ignorance, i.e. reading noting whatsoever.

when all facts and backed up arguments say otherwise. i'm offended.

As you should be. But I'm still waiting for the facts.

you can make your pick:
-http://www.victorynewsmagazine.com/TheQuranandNewZealandGiantSquid.htm#Jacques Cousteau Died as a Muslim

Yes, uncredited source for Cousteau's "quotes". I.e. are they genuine.
And I particularly like this bit:

Whether it's true or not that Jacques Cousteau was Muslim, we also however, don't accept the work of the enemy of Islam who stated that he was not - he also says other very erroneous things- ..as one might expect but there are Muslims who agree about this too- (Jacques Cousteau

So the first part says they don't know if Cousteau was really a Muslim, then the last two words imply that the author of that page assumes he was.

-http://www.google.com.sa/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CAsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.answering-islam.org%2FHoaxes%2Fcousteau.html&ei=J-5UTKqUD5j60wSXu_39Ag&usg=AFQjCNHh-rwsNdfoj5ngjPy-aLGc7Mtkrg&sig2=_Z905dOdcYIofxb5ieT26A[/SIZE]

Um,

الصفحة التي كنت عليها تحاول أن ترسل إليك عنوان موقع url غير صالح.

إذا كنت لا ترغب في زيارة تلك الصفحة، يمكنك العودة إلى الصفحة السابقة.

:shrug:

In fact Cousteau was NOT a Muslim.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/cousteau.html
And:

Tell me again about facts, I'm interested.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think I can guess how these claims were addressed by people who are biased against them.

Ah I see.
If someone agrees with your interpretation they're, what, open-minded?
If they disagree (and especially if they can *gasp* refute your contentions) they're biased.
Way to go.
You just became ignore-worthy.

 

[Big Chiller]

Ignoring me speaks scores about you in this case. All I implied was it might have been different if the people addressing these claims were unbiased against them.

 

[GeoffP]

C'est finale, a mon avis.

Alex sam: why not compare all the other assertions in Sura 55 against your hypothesis? Allah certainly did not teach Man language; animals including chimpanzees communicate also. Man was not created "of clay like the potter's", but rather evolved. These barriers also are permeable: they do encroach upon each other.

Not to mention that Sura 55 is about the obligation of faith, rather than a natural history or geography lesson. The lesson in Sura 25 is the despising of the unbeliever; the two "seas" are Muslims and non-Muslims (we being apparently the "bitter, unpleasant" ones). Again, this is meant as a demonstration of faith, rather than science.

I think this topic is about done.