Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Servidor v.s THHuxley

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

The debates section is gone however brother Ali has approved this debate via PM Alhamdulillah. This debate has a story around it, I and brother Huxley argued for an extremely long time on this very topic before. I however have more time on my hands and have come to the realisation that neither of us will compromise our viewpoints on the subject, however this debate will highlight and give you the chance to see who's viewpoint is based upon Geological evidence or vice versa. Please no posting everyone except my dear brudder Huxley :angel: . We have post restraints for this one because :D like I said we wont compromise our views and trust me, without out this post limit this dialogue would be a burden upon any reader.

The format for this debate will be:

1. Opening for each of us.

2. First Rebuttal for each of us.

3. Second Rebuttal for each of us.

4. Finally a concise concluding statement from both of us.

I apologise, I will definetly make my Opening Statement first thing in the morning Insha'Allah :angel:

Wasalam

Edited by Servidor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

*Edited to correct my sources numbers, my Arabic :D and of course my english* ^_^

And just a side note, this Opening was written in under 2 hours. I with held posting it because I wanted to be here to respond to brother Huxleys opening directly, however he did view this topic and then consequently signed out. Now numbers in my posts represent sources, which you can find at the end of each post Insha'Allah.

(bismillah)

(salam) everyone. :)

Praise be to Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He, the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. And may everlasting peace and blessings be upon the Holy Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and his holy and pure Ahlul Bayht (as) , and May Allah the Most High hasten the reappearance or the beloved Imam Muhammad al Mahdi (as) .

'Ola-ika allatheena yalamu Allahu ma fee quloobihim faarid anhum waithhum waqul lahum fee anfusihim qawlan baleeghan'

To proceed; We must establish that the Holy Quran is not a Book dedicated to science. The Holy Quran is a Book of Guidance, directly from our Creator. The Holy Quran addresses issues that are simply unattainable solely via human intellect, the essence of faith, praises of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He, belief in the prophets and apostles {the Ahlul Bayht (as) }, exhortations to good, everlasting deeds, command to do good and prohibition against doing evil, inspiration to the desire of paradise and to avoidance of hell-fire, (1) appropiate actions in war and peace, treatement of one's parents, and so much more.

The Holy Quran consists of 114 Surats, and 6,226 Holy Ayaats, containing 99,464 words made up of 330,113 letters. The Quran is Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa's Glorified be He Literal Words. The Quran is an ocean of Wisdom, Guidance, Knowledge and Light for all of mankind. The Holy Quran is divided into thirty equal parts that consists of twenty-four reading minutes, and the whole Book of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He requires twelve reading hours. Now I must explain for readers just in case my dear brother Huxley reinforces this red herring, the language of the Holy Quran is exceedingly complicated. There are no neutral sex animals in Quranic Arabic i.e you cannot say "I saw a cow" the word has to explain whether it is male or female. Every word can have a variety of meanings, however the meanings remain the same in essence. In Quranic Arabic there are cases when the word is strictly and indespensably poetic. In other cases they are strictly literal.

When explaining about Paradise, the stories of the past Prophets etc, poetic terms are used to invoke the emotional side of the human being in order to make us understand the situation on a deeper level (2). On natural and observable(even if only now 14,00 years after the Revelation)phenomena, the Quranic Arabic is strictly literal. This is why I urge all who are studying the Holy Quran, to refer to Authentic Tafsir(Quranic Commentary)which will explain the Arabic and historical context of the Holy Ayaats, in the light of the Quran Itself and the Sahih Hadiths. I personally use Grand Ayatullah Muhammad al Shirazi (May Allah SWT Glorified be He Bless his departed soul) Tafsir.

The Holy Quran, is a Miracle in every sense of the word, idiosyncratic in It's Entirety with no former nor latter. The Quran is a Book which cannot be replicated by mankind. Now out of these 6,226 Holy Ayaats, the number of them that speak on subjects which are now in encompassed in the various fields of Science exceeds 1000. The Holy Quran when refering to empirical realities which where unobservable by man until recently, shows that the Quran comes from the Creator, Who created the Universe and could annihilate and recreate the Universe. 'Inna Allaha yumsiku alssamawati waal-arda an tazoola wala-in zalata in amsakahuma min ahadin min badihi innahu kana haleeman ghafooran' which can be transliterated as 'Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth lest they cease.' Surat Fatir Holy Ayaah 41.

In this debate I will provide evidence from secular(non-muslim and non-religious sources)works that substantiate a few Holy Ayaats that speak on Mountains, and their function. The word "Earth" is used in the Holy Quran 461 times, the earth and geology are covered in the Holy Quran extensively. Approximently 110 Holy Ayaats are of specific geological interest. I have been working on a Geological model that will Insha'Allah demonstrate that mountains in general collectively stabilize the earth however I will only be presenting the empirical and already accepted process in which mountains stabilize the earth, rather than proposing my incomplete hypothesis.

Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Says in His Holy Quran in Surat an Nahl Holy Ayaah 15

'Waalqa fee al-ardi rawasiya an tameeda bikum waanharan wasubulan laallakum tahtadoona' which can be transliterated as 'And He has affixed into the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and rivers and roads, that you may guide yourselves.' and furthermore He the Exalted Says in Surat Luqman Holy Ayaah 10 'Khalaqa alssamawati bighayri amadin tarawnaha waalqa fee al-ardi rawasiya an tameeda bikum wabaththa feeha min kulli dabbatin waanzalna mina alssama-i maan faanbatna feeha min kulli zawjin kareemin' which can be transliterated as 'He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs.'

These Holy Ayaats make it clear, that mountains in some way shape or form stop the earth from shaking under us. The arabic word used here "tameeda" it means to sway, shake or move. With transliterations one must keep in mind that they are not word for word translations as this is impossible in regards to Quranic Arabic. So admittedly transliterators have merely tried to keep the Holy Ayaahs message intact, while choosing what they feel to be the most appealing word that the english language has to offer. All of the transliterations imply that Tameeda is a violent shaking, swaying or moving. The arabic word for earthquake is "Zalzalah" as in the 99th Surat of the Holy Quran, Surat az Zalzalah transliterated as "the Earthquake". Tameeda does not derive from the word earthquake, nor does it have anything to do with the process that is caused by a sudden release of strain in the earth's interior (meaning the crust or mantle). This sudden release of strain occurs because the strength of the straining material is exceeded by the strain that has accumulated within that material. For example, along a fault that is locked by friction, fault rupture occurs when the accumulated strain exceeds the frictional forces that prevent fault slip. (3). The word earthquake is present in the Quran, an entire Surat is named after it hence it becomes strikingly obvious that Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He was not Saying that mountains stop earthquakes. Rather mountains stop the earth from swaying, shaking or moving violently under us. Is this a Geological reality?

Well you see, the lithosphere is broken up into seperate plates of different sizes, shape, dimensions etc. These rocky and solid plates float around on the weak zone of the earths mantle, they move freely towards or away from the adjacent plates. At the diverging boundaries magma solidifies and forms a mid oceanic mountain ridge. The lithospheric plates are still consistently moving as such the continents are always drifting towards or away from eachother. With massive amounts of momentum. (4) Violent seismic events happen at the transcurrent fault boundaries, plate movements along these boundaries are not usually continous but rather sudden violent movements which release strain.

Now as a result of plate boundary interaction we get continental organic belts which form when two continents collide after consuming the oceanic floor between them. In this process the sediments, sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks are moved and squeezed in between the two colliding continents forming mountains. The movements of the two colliding continents cease as the plates become welded together, with crustal shortening and thickening. The mountain roots are much deeper than the relatively small tip that we can view, these roots stabilize the continental plates. But natural as the plates motions are more or less completely halted by the formation of the new mountains.

The asthenosphere is below the lithosphere this makes it easy to understand why the continents are above the oceanic basins. The crust beneath them is much thicker than it is beneath the oceans, and the thickness of the continental plates is relatively thicker than the oceanic plates. This because (as agreed upon) the less dense lithosphere floats on top of the easily deformed athenosphere.

Lithosphereic plates move along fueled by the way which the heat flows come to the base of the lithospehere and with the rotation of the earth on its own axis the plates build up huge amounts of speed. These plates build up massive amounts of momentum as we could all imagine. These newly formed mountains A. Stop the shaking in general from the collision and B. Weld the plates together so that they do not collide again. Mountains also limit the verocity of plate movements; i.e they absorb the force and convergence of plates moving towards eachother. (5) Convergent plate boundaries are collision zones, without the Mountains absorbing their force the earth would indeed shake, sway and move in the true sense of the word tameeda.

Now without these newly formed mountains, all the lithosphereic plates would have more room to gain speed and they would collide with their full force, continually this because there is no bondary in between them. Life would become baseically impossible, because every continent would collide until the destruction of every single continent on earth. So of course the collisions which could quite possibly continue are halted by the forming of the new mountains which are thus stabilizers. (6).

Does this mean the plates never move? This would indeed make a contradiction between the Book of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He and established geology if this was the case but of course it is not. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He Says in Surat an-Naml Holy Ayaah 88 'Watara aljibala tahsabuha jamidatan wahiya tamurru marra alssahabi suna Allahi allathee atqana kulla shay-in innahu khabeerun bima tafaloona.' which can be transliterated as 'And you see the mountains, you think them to be solid, and they shall pass away as the passing away of the cloud -- the handiwork of Allah Who has made every thing thoroughly; surely He is Aware of what you do.'

Mountains do not reach asthenosphere, hence Mountains move with the continents while still stopping the earth from "under us" from swaying, shaking or moving violently. The mountains are moving on the continents, slowly indeed precisely like clouds. Motion has been measured at from 1-5 cm per year. As the plates continue to move about, this will produce a slow change in Earth's geography. Each year, for instance, the Atlantic Ocean becomes slightly wider. (7)

Now Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He Says in Surat al-Naba’ Holy Ayaats 6 to 7 'Alam najali al-arda mihadan? Waaljibala awtadan?' which can be transliterated as 'Have We not put the earth as a place of rest? And the mountains as pegs?'. Various cycles have been taking place for at least 4.6 billion years, to make the land surface flat and easy to sustain life. The rate of sedimentation needs many years in order to form one centimeter from sediments. Man could not have fufilled the task of flattening the earths surface so as to make human life easy. Hence the earth being described as a place of rest is appropiate.

Now arabic word here, means specifically tent peg. So the usual objection is, "Mountains do not look like tent pegs". Read the Holy Ayaats "as pegs" not "look like pegs". Hence the Holy Ayaats mean they are as pegs they have the function of pegs. Clearly not Stating that mountains resemble pegs. Mountains have deep roots, the majority of the mountain is underground and as mentioned earlier we see only a relatively small part of the mountains. (8). Mountains are indeed deep and firm like tent pegs and just like tent pegs stabilize the tent, mountains as demonstrated above stabilize the earth. Hence in my view and many others there is amazing concordance not contradiction on the topic of the Holy Quran on mountains.

Thank you for reading :angel:

Wasalam

Sources:

1. Quotation from cAbdul Aleem, I'jaz ul Qur'an, Islamic Culture, pp. 222-223.

2. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/

3. http://www.geology.wisc.edu/%7Echuck/Class...s/eq_cycle.html

4. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99078.htm

5. http://www.llnl.gov/str/Ryerson.html and http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/servs/pubs/geobit...eobit10/plt.htm

6. For a more detailed explanation on how continental colissions form mountains please see http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/collision.html

7. General Science Carolyn Sheets, Robert Gardner, Samuel F. Howe, Pages 305-306.

8. http://www.geology.wisc.edu/courses/g112/mtn_roots.html and also Earth Science, Tarbuck and Lutgens, Page 157.

Edited by Servidor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I would like to first thank Brother Servidor and the Moderators for the opportunity to engage in this debate.

Huxley's Introduction:

For an “Opening Statement,” it is important to outline the manner in which I intend to address the subject of “Qur’anic Geology.” The issue is (of course) not merely if the Qur’an is “in concordance” with our modern understanding of geology, but whether or not it contains “miraculous scientific information” regarding geology that can only have been divinely inspired. The Qur’an could say any number of prosaic and obvious things that are in full “concordance” with scientific knowledge, but so do many works of acknowledged fiction. We are not concerned with the prosaic or the obvious. We are concerned with information that would be inexplicable without the intervention of Allah to provide that information.

This discussion will require the following questions to be answered:

1. Does the Qur’an actually say the things Servidor claims it says?

We will find that much (if not all) of what Servidor asserts in his claims is not actually found in the Qur’an, but can only be found in the “commentary” that he and other Islamic apologists add to the Qur’an. It is critical that the reader actually refer periodically to the Qur’an itself to distinguish between what it actually says, and what is added to it by Servidor.

2. Is Servidor’s understanding of geology correct?

Much of Servidor’s position is occupied with an exposition on what he believes modern geology has to say on issues such as mountain building and continental collisions. His version of such phenomena is designed to conform as closely as possible to statements in the Qur’an, but in so doing he makes such a vast number of factual errors that we will only have time to point out the most egregious.

3. Is the Qur’an actually correct?

If the Qur’an makes statements regarding geology that are factually false, then certainly that information cannot be a “miracle of Allah.” Servidor is in fact so aware of this that he invests most of his time assembling a “geological theory: with the sole purpose of providing an alternative to the Qur’ans clear language. This is necessary because the clear language itself, taken at face value, is factually false.

A note on translations: This debate is taking place in English, and therefore any assessment of the Qur’ans meaning will therefore necessitate translations from Arabic. I will rely exclusively on the three translations found on-line at the University of Southern California’s “Compendium of Muslims Texts,” sponsored and operated by the USC Muslim Student’s Association. (1)

So, with this conceptual frame work in place, let us proceed to the debate:

What does the Qur’an actually say regarding mountains?

The Qur’an mentions mountains repeatedly, sometimes as a metaphor, sometimes as “signs,” and sometimes simply part of the scenery in a story. Three such mentions are immediately relevant to this debate:

Al Qur’an 021.031

YUSUFALI: And We have set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with them, and We have made therein broad highways (between mountains) for them to pass through: that they may receive Guidance.

PICKTHAL: And We have placed in the earth firm hills lest it quake with them, and We have placed therein ravines as roads that haply they may find their way.

SHAKIR: And We have made great mountains in the earth lest it might be convulsed with them, and We have made in it wide ways that they may follow a right direction.

031.010

YUSUFALI: He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs.

PICKTHAL: He hath created the heavens without supports that ye can see, and hath cast into the earth firm hills, so that it quake not with you; and He hath dispersed therein all kinds of beasts. And We send down water from the sky and We cause (plants) of every goodly kind to grow therein.

SHAKIR: He created the heavens without pillars as you see them, and put mountains upon the earth lest it might convulse with you, and He spread in it animals of every kind; and We sent down water from the cloud, then caused to grow therein (vegetation) of every noble kind.

078.006-007

YUSUFALI: Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse, And the mountains as pegs?

PICKTHAL: Have We not made the earth an expanse, And the high hills bulwarks?

SHAKIR: Have We not made the earth an even expanse? And the mountains as projections (thereon)?

Regarding mountains, these ayaat make only the following statements, depending on the translation:

1- The mountains are “firm,” they “stand firm,” or they are “great.”

2- They are set on the Earth.

3- They have the purpose of keeping the Earth (and the people on it) from “shaking,” “quaking” or “convulsing.”

4- They are “as pegs,” “bulwarks” or “projections.”

They do not include any mention of “stability” or “continuous motion.” They do not describe a “crust” for the Earth, or the “roots” of mountains, or “tectonic plates,” or “mid-oceanic ridges” or any of the other geological structures Servidor introduces. The actual mention of any of these things in unambiguous Arabic would have rendered this debate completely moot. But since no such statements exist, we are left with the fact that these four statements are the entire foundation upon which Servidor builds an elaborate (and ultimately false) theory for the tectonic motion of our planet’s crust.

Earthquakes: The Elephant in the Qur’anic Living Room

Faced with the seemingly obvious fact that Qur’an is referring to mountains as preventing earthquakes (a demonstrable falsehood), Servidor begins the substantive part of his post trying to deny the obvious. He does so with an argument (inexplicably unreferenced) from the non-geologist Dr. Zakir Naik, i.e. that among the things the Qur’an is not referring to here is “earthquakes.” Out of the gate, he is squirming around the clear language of the Qur’an itself.

The three translators from the USC-MSA database translate the word in question as either “shake,” “quake” or “convulse.” Servidor himself tells us that “The arabic word used here ‘tameeda’ it means to sway, shake or move.” So the rather obvious question is, if these are not references to earthquakes, then what else can they possibly refer to? What other motions of the earth can be described as “shaking, quaking, convulsing, swaying or moving?”

It takes no effort to establish that all these translations are very accurate descriptions of actual earthquakes. Even the most cursory review of the Modified Mercalli Scale of Earthquake Intensity (2) establishes this inescapable fact. There are in fact almost no natural motions of the Earth that fit this description other than earthquakes.

The motions of the earth caused by volcanic eruptions are, yes, earthquakes. The shaking of tectonic plates at their boundaries are, yes, earthquakes. The motions at the mid-oceanic ridge caused by moving magma are, yes, earthquakes. The only exception to this rule is meteoric impact, and I suspect even Servidor would not try to claim that mountains prevent meteor impact.

Now this is an obvious problem for Servidor, since we know something that the authors of the Qur’an did not. This is that mountains are actually created by earthquakes. Both mountains and earthquakes are consequences of the same tectonic movements of the Earth;s crust. And any map of earthquake occurrences around the world shows that rather than preventing earthquakes, mountains and mountainous regions are precisely the spots on the planet where the most frequent and most violent earthquakes occur.

globe-plates.GIF

Earthquake locations around the globe. (3)

Recognizing the direct connection between mountains and earthquakes required the modern ability to locate and map them on a global scale, something that would not have been known to the authors of the Qur’an. We will discuss the relationship in more detail as we look at Servidor’s attempt to explain plate tectonics.

But the important issue here is that taken on its face, the Qur’an is claiming that mountains prevent earthquakes, when in fact the exact opposite circumstance is true.

Servidors “alternative” to Earthquakes: Bigger Earthquakes

Servidor’s entire argument depends on trying to explain how mountains might “limit” (rather than actually prevent) the shaking of the Earth. Such an explanation is not actually available from any of the sources he provided in his post, as can readily be seen by clicking in his links and reading the references themselves. Instead, Servidor fabricates his own version of tectonic event out of whole cloth, and in so doing makes a series of egregious factual errors.

For example, we read the following:

Now as a result of plate boundary interaction we get continental organic belts which form when two continents collide after consuming the oceanic floor between them. In this process the sediments, sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks are moved and squeezed in between the two colliding continents forming mountains. The movements of the two colliding continents cease as the plates become welded together, with crustal shortening and thickening. The mountain roots are much deeper than the relatively small tip that we can view, these roots stabilize the continental plates. But natural as the plates motions are more or less completely halted by the formation of the new mountains.

As any of this true?

For starters, most of the mountains on the planet have nothing to do with continental collisions at all. Of scores of major mountain ranges on the planet (4) only two are caused by continental collisions (i.e. the Alps and the Himalaya). The rest are caused by collisions between non-continental plates, volcanism, or rifting in which continental plates are actually splitting up rather than colliding. The mountains of the Arabian Peninsula (for example) are “fault block” mountains caused by rifting, not collision.

Second, in the only two examples we have of continental collision, in neither of them are continents “welding together” or experiencing a “halt” of plate movement. In the Alps, the African plate is continuing to move but merely sliding underneath the Eurasian plate (this is called “subduction.”) In the Himalaya, the Indian plate is also continuing to move but subducting underneath the Eurasian plate.

Third, rather than being zones where (as Servidor would have you believe) the mountains are somehow contributing to “stability,” these mountainous and the continuing movement of these plates represent the most unstable places on the planet.

At present, the movement of India continues to put enormous pressure on the Asian continent, and Tibet in turn presses on the landmass to the north that is hemming it in. The net effect of plate-tectonics forces acting on this geologically complicated region is to squeeze parts of Asia eastward toward the Pacific Ocean. One serious consequence of these processes is a deadly "domino" effect: tremendous stresses build up within the Earth's crust, which are relieved periodically by earthquakes along the numerous faults that scar the landscape. Some of the world's most destructive earthquakes in history are related to continuing tectonic processes that began some 50 million years ago when the Indian and Eurasian continents first met. (5)

Fourth, lets pretend for a second that Servidor was correct that mountain formation somehow reduced or prevented “shak[ing], sway[ing] and mov[ing] in the true sense of the word tameeda.” What are the movements that are actually being prevented really? Why they are merely the earthquakes that are naturally caused by these collisions.

But Servidor has already insisted that these verses have nothing to do with earthquakes, and the supposed objective of these descriptions was to provide an alternative meaning for “tammeda.” But instead of an alternative for earthquakes, he has actually done nothing more than describe more earthquakes.

Continental Zip: Servidor’s Imaginary Geology

Since actual geology does not actually support Servidor’s claims regarding the “function of mountains,” he then goes on to attempts a rather different, and invents an imaginary geology that does not actually exist. He speculates on what might happen if mountains did not exist:

Now without these newly formed mountains, all the lithosphereic plates would have more room to gain speed and they would collide with their full force, continually this because there is no bondary in between them. Life would become baseically impossible, because every continent would collide until the destruction of every single continent on earth. So of course the collisions which could quite possibly continue are halted by the forming of the new mountains

There are so many errors of fact and concept in these three sentences, it is difficult to choose where to begin.

First, the idea of plates having “more room to gain speed” seems completely ignorant of the driving forces for tectonic movement. Specifically, Lithospheric plates have no “speed” of their own. They are passive passengers floating on the asthenosphere, and it is the asthenosphere that regulates the speed of plate movement, not the “room [they have] to gain speed.” A plate can move no faster than the mantle on which it floats, and with few exceptions tectonic plates are already moving at pretty much their top speed. The fastest possible plate movement (at 10 cm per year) is roughly the equivalent speed at which your fingernails grow. (6) The magical elimination of any particular crustal feature can have no effect in the speed of the asthenosphere.

Second, mountains actually create more room for plates rather than reduce room. All mountains represent locations where plates are overlapping (allowing two plates to take up the room otherwise filed by a single plate) and compressing laterally (i.e. making the plate shorter, allowing more room for other plates). These are the continental “orogenic belts” (Servidor mistakenly calls them “organic belts) in which continental crust is compressed and thickened. Without them there would actually be far less room on the planet for plates than there are with them. (7)

Finally, the geologic history of the planet Earth has actually been outlined in great detail, at least over the last billion years or so. In that time, all the continents have repeatedly collided, split apart, collided again, and then split again into their current configuration. (8) And yet, during all that time life on Earth has quite obviously remained “possible.”

Servidor’s imaginary geology even produces errors beyond simply geology and into basic physics:

Lithosphereic plates move along fueled by the way which the heat flows come to the base of the lithospehere and with the rotation of the earth on its own axis the plates build up huge amounts of speed. These plates build up massive amounts of momentum as we could all imagine.

Since we already know that plates are passive passengers on the dynamic asthenosphere underneath them, we know that nothing “fuels” their motion at all. They simply float like soap bubbles on the mantle underneath. But what gets our attention here are two serious errors of physics.

The first is that “the rotation of the earth” somehow contributes to the speed of plate movement. To do so, the rotation of the earth would have to somehow accelerate plate motion, i.e. add to their velocity. In fact, this is not possible. The Coriolis force (i.e. the force generated by the earth’s rotation) can act only on fast moving entities like weather systems, airplanes or artillery shells, not on things moving at a only few centimeters a years. (9)

The second is that tectonic plates “build up massive amounts of momentum.” Since momentum is equal to mass X velocity, the only way a plate could “build up momentum” would be by either getting more massive or gaining more velocity. But we actually have very detailed historic records of plate velocity form several different sources, and they reveal no acceleration of plate movement for at least the last million years. Therefore, there is no possibility to build up any more momentum than plates already have. They are not building up any momentum at all.

Qur’anic Vacillation: Are Mountains Fixed or Not?

Towards the end of his post, Servidor attempts to claim the Qur’an indicates that mountains move, as they rather obviously do. He writes:

Does this mean the plates never move? This would indeed make a contradiction between the Book of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He and established geology if this was the case but of course it is not. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He Says in Surat an-Naml Holy Ayaah 88 'Watara aljibala tahsabuha jamidatan wahiya tamurru marra alssahabi suna Allahi allathee atqana kulla shay-in innahu khabeerun bima tafaloona.' which can be transliterated as 'And you see the mountains, you think them to be solid, and they shall pass away as the passing away of the cloud -- the handiwork of Allah Who has made every thing thoroughly; surely He is Aware of what you do.'

The problem with this claim is that it clearly contradicts other ayaat that insist the mountains are fixed. At least six different places in the Qur’an we find verses similar to:

Al Qur’an 015.019

YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.

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

SHAKIR: And the earth-- We have spread it forth and made in it firm mountains and caused to grow in it of every suitable thing.

See also 013.003, 041.010, 050.007, 077.027, 079.032

So how do we account for what would on its face appear to be a contradiction in the Qur’an?

The issue is simply that Servidor has quoted the Qur’an completely out of context. The verse he quoted is not a description of mountains today, it is a prophecy regarding what will happen to mountains at the day of judgment. There are at least 13 different verses in the Qur’an that talk about mountains moving, vanishing, collapsing, scattering and being crushed, and every single one of them (to include Al Qur’an 027:88) is a prophecy of the end of the world.

So the Qur’an does not, in fact, say that mountains move. Worse, it says they do not. Worse still, the Qur’an actually says that the Earth itself does not move.

Al Qur’an 027.061

YUSUFALI: Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

PICKTHAL: Is not He (best) Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas? Is there any Allah beside Allah? Nay, but most of them know not!

SHAKIR: Or, Who made the earth a resting place, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier. Is there a god with Allah? Nay! most of them do not know!

So we must revisit Servidor’s own question:

Does this mean the plates never move? This would indeed make a contradiction between the Book of Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He and established geology if this was the case.

I leave the answer to the reader.

Mountainous Pegs: A Final Irrelevancy

Servidor finishes with the classic Qur’anic reference to the mountains being pegs. He writes:

Now arabic word here, means specifically tent peg. So the usual objection is, "Mountains do not look like tent pegs". Read the Holy Ayaats "as pegs" not "look like pegs". Hence the Holy Ayaats mean they are as pegs they have the function of pegs. Clearly not Stating that mountains resemble pegs. Mountains have deep roots, the majority of the mountain is underground and as mentioned earlier we see only a relatively small part of the mountains. (8). Mountains are indeed deep and firm like tent pegs and just like tent pegs stabilize the tent, mountains as demonstrated above stabilize the earth.

His initial point appears to be that mountains really do not “look like” tent pegs, but then he seems to contradict himself by using appearance as a criterion for claiming they are “peg like,” i.e. that they both have “deep roots.”

But more critically, we are left with a claim that they have the “function of pegs” supported with a claim that has already been demonstrated false earlier in this post; I.e. that mountains “stabilize” the Earth.

Real tent pegs are supposed to anchor the tent in place, so one must ask exactly how the mountains anchor the earth in place. To anchor a tent, the pegs pass through the tent material or anchor a rope to the “solid ground” on which the tent has been pitched. But mountains do not anchor anything to anything.

The Continental Crust (to include the “roots” of mountains) do not extend into the asthenosphere (i.e. the plastic mantle). They remain embedded in the lithosphere, which is a rigid solid. The interface between the rigid lithosphere and the plastic Asthenosphere occurs at a depth of approximately 100 to 250 kilometers. (10) Therefore, they simply float along at the whim of the plate, and provide neither stability nor anchoring.

Another University Text book observes:

“The lithosphere is much thicker than the crust, however, and one of the consequences for plate tectonics is that as the lithosphere moves, the crust is rafted along as a passenger. Continents move, to be sure, but they do so only as portions of larger plates, not as discrete entities.” (11)

Since the mountains are simply part of the crust, they raft along as passengers. They are neither anchors nor pegs in any sense of the word.

I look forward to Servidor’s first rebuttal. In the meantime, thank you gentle reader for your patience and attention.

Hux

Sources:

1) http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

2) http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/cl...0/mercalli.html

3) http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/cl...-tectonics.html

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_ranges

5) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

6) http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/eart...lr/plates1.html

7) http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10k.html

8) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

9) http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~dvandom/Edu/newcor.html

10) Essentials of Geology (7th Edition) Lutgens & Tarbuck, 2000; Prentice Hall (pp. 308- 310)

11) The Dynamic Earth (3rd Edition) Skinner & Porter, 1995 (p. 467)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam) Everyone :)

'Huwa allathee arsala rasoolahu bialhuda wadeeni alhaqqi liyuthhirahu ala alddeeni kullihi walaw kariha almushrikoona'

Okay brother Huxley has used an unfortunatley poor tactic, and as a result wasted a good portion of his opening on an arguement that I had already addressed to be completely false and unfounded by anyone familiar with Quranic Arabic. So we can adress brother Huxleys arguement number 1 quite easily. Does brother Huxley speak any arabic? The answer is no, so where does brother Huxley get the authority to speak on this Book in this langauage with such complexcity? As J.M Rodwell said "much of the power of the Original is lost in translation..." (1) Our dear brother Huxley he simply doesnt speak any arabic which is why as you can see he merely applies strict literalism to transliterations, which even by a missionarie is a exceedingly foolish move.

The word "tameeda" it means to sway, shake or move. Some transliterators for the sake of appealing to the english reader have indeed used different words. They admitt however that this is for the sake of making the Holy Quran more appealing in the english language. However everytime the transliteration implies a severe shaking, swaying or moving. On the extreme opposite not one transliteration adds the word which brother Huxley so desperatetly tries to allude you into believeing should be present "Zalzalah". Oh the irony, brother Huxley has accused me of adding words in when he himself argues that the Holy Ayaats are refering to earthquakes, without the word earthquake being present :lol:

I do say he did a good job of trying to explain what the Holy Ayaats are saying, but I will help him out a little bit since he is vividly alien to the language. The Holy Ayaats Say:

1. Mountains are firm solid structures.

2. Mountains are deep within the earth, the arabic word "arsaha" means to be be made rooted, to be fixed deep within and firm.

3. They have the function of keeping the earth from under us from shaking, swaying or moving violently as the word tameeda implies. Does this not imply stabilizing the earth? I do not need to add any words, my five year old cousin would be able to realise this.

4. They are pegs, brother Huxley has tried to introduce once again an older arguement based on whether or not mountains resemble tent pegs or not. The arabic word means tent pegs, the other transliterations are indeed more rich and appealing however they stray from the most literal meaning which is tent pegs. Allow the Quran to speak for Itself. Surat al-Naba’ Holy Ayaats 6 to 7 'Alam najali al-arda mihadan? Waaljibala awtadan?' which can be transliterated as 'Have We not put the earth as a place of rest? And the mountains as pegs?'.

The word earthquake is not present in the Holy Ayaah, the root of Tameeda has nothing to do with earthquakes, the word Tameeda just means swaying, shaking or moving violently, Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He Revealed the 99th Surat, which is named the earthquake if He wanted to He would have said Mountains stop earthquakes. The fact that the arabic word for earthquake is explicit and present in the Holy Quran and not employed in these Holy Ayaats is simply enough to make any clever logician rethink such a preposterous and dogmatic preconceived conclusion that the Holy Ayaats mean that mountains stop earthquakes.

So brother Huxley asks what other process of shaking could be refered to. :lol: Once again his arguement was addressed in my opening. The Mountains formed from continental collisions, first and foremost stop the shaking that is obviously taking place after the collision. The colissions occur because the plates momentum (2) Now the newly formed mountains, they then weld the continents together prevent any future collision, and of course they absorb the force and convergence of plates moving towards eachother. Convergent plate boundaries are collision zones, without the Mountains absorbing their force the earth would indeed shake, sway and move in the true sense of the word tameeda. He offered no serious rebuttal. He then claims I misused my sources. Hmmm this is his poor habit of not reading what others have to say, you can see yesterday he accused me of opening a topic that had two posts withstanding before I even got there. Brother Huxleys little buddy Gulliver even seemed a little upset at this visible habit of brother Huxley. ( http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?sh...ic=82585&st=0 )

As Katie Walter said Mountain faults "....absorb a significant portion of the convergence..." (3) she was refering to the convergence between India and Asia. Mountain faults (4) absorb the convergence of the plates, convergant boundaries are colission zones. Brother Huxley then claimed that the Mountains have not limited the movement, funny no source? Please visit the link for my 3rd Source, she explains that clearly Mountain Faults have absorbed the convergence of the plates, thus giving ample stability. To clarify, he used two examples and says that the Mountains did not halt the plates, I did not mean in general he took my statement out of context. If you read my whole opening you see that I stated that mountains move with the continents because they do not reach the asthenosphere. On the same not when the continents collide, the two continents are indeed halted and welded to the newly formed mountain. He merely stated the obvious that the plates still move, I said before elaborating on the process "The lithospheric plates are still consistently moving as such the continents are always drifting towards or away from eachother." This is what I call brother Huxleys feasible words tactic, point out the obvious, repeat what I stated and call it an arguement. :angel:

See without these mountains the plates would have far more speed and of course the continents would be subject to future colissions. As Wildman Jackson made clear, the continents they build up massive amounts of momentum that is how the oceanic floor in between the continents is consumed, that is how the sediments, sedimentary rocks, volcanic rocks etc are s[Edited Out]ed up and slammed in between the continents and put under such pressure that they form mountains.

His claim that only two mountains are formed via this process is well, just non sense a vast amount of mountains are formed via this process. (5) He may try and say that it is not always continental colissions that form these types of mountains, this would be a lack of explicit referencing on my part or perhaps to explicit sometimes, please forgive my poor english lol which can sometimes be either, unintentionally to weak or too strong. However this would just be a red herring on brother Huxleys part, he cannot dispute the conclusion. And that is the they end up forming mountains and since he doesnt like my use of the word welding, I will use the author of the wikipedia articles the plates are sutured together thus stabilizing and preventing future collisions. And of course still absorbing the convergence.

Everyone except brother Huxley agrees that these mountains, absorb the convergence of the plates, weld the plates together and stop the continents from colliding again. That has thus stopped the earth from swaying, shaking or moving in the true sense of the word Tameeda. Brother Huxley then accuses me of making Geological errors, fact is this is just his other bad habit which is misrepresenting what I have to say. I never said lithoesphereic plates have their own source of speed in fact I said clearly yesterday "Lithosphereic plates move along fueled by the way which the heat flows come to the base of the lithospehere...." Fueled by, not have their own independent motion. Can brother Huxley provide the reported error in my words? With the fact that the plates would have more room to collide, this is strikingly obvious less land mass=more room to collide. Furthermore if the mountains did not form, for example mid oceanic mountains ranges there would be no divergent boundaries. The mountains that form from oregeny I agree do not lessen the space for plates to move, however and I apologise for not being more explicit mid oceanic ranges form where new crust is generated as the plates pull away from each other. If they did not form then the space where the divergent boundaries are present on earth would be empty and hence more space for the plates to move. Please see http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html as you can read more on this process.

I will then happily compromise my position, the plates do not gain speed as the earth rotates I stand corrected however the plates do build up momentum you can see source 2 for this simple fact.

Now he makes the bold claim of Quranic Contradiction. :angel: You gotta love his energy, however his pre concieved conclusions will just further sink his already tattered arguement. The Holy Ayaah in Surat an-Naml Holy Ayaah 88 'Watara aljibala tahsabuha jamidatan wahiya tamurru marra alssahabi suna Allahi allathee atqana kulla shay-in innahu khabeerun bima tafaloona.' which can be transliterated as 'And you see the mountains, you think them to be solid, and they shall pass away as the passing away of the cloud -- the handiwork of Allah Who has made every thing thoroughly; surely He is Aware of what you do.'.

Means just as I explained before, mountains are affixed in the earths surface and deep and firm like tent pegs, immoveable from the surface. However they do not reach the asthenosphere hence they float with the continents, slowly moving like a cloud Alhamdulillah. It is not a contradiction rather it is a contradistinction. As far as it being an end of time prophecy, we believe it is the end of time's, Yusuf Ali himself writes in his footnote, " 'Atqana' to arrange or dispose of things with art, or so as to obtain the most perfect results. The present phenomenal world and the future that is to be, all have a definite object and purpose in the Plan of Allah." (6) All the Transliterators agree that this is and has always been an ongoing process that is what the word Atqana implies, the prophecy is fufilled as we notice the mountains moving which naturally takes a vast amount of time. Hence the Holy Quran does not say that the mountains where once not moving, or are not moving rather the Holy Quran Says we will notice this process of mountains slowly moving near the end of times that is the prophecy, not that they will commence moving at the end of times. Thus I quoted it perfectly in Its context.

The Holy Ayaats say that the mountains are as tent pegs. Tent pegs do not precisely anchor the tent, they merely are driven deep into the ground while being attached to the tent and thus stabilize it. Mountains weld the continents together, are deep in the ground and as demonstrated already twice now stabilize the earth. Just like a tent peg Alhamdulillah. I actually stated that mountains do not reach the asthenosphere before brother Huxley. Now do any of you have a tent peg that can reach the asthenosphere? :o No?! Do they still stabilize the tent?! :) Yes okay Alhamdulillah. Apply the same to mountains, the Holy Ayaats do not say that Mountains stabilize the asthenosphere but rather keep the earth under us from shaking. I have provided the secular sources that agree with this and I do not feel brother Huxley has provided any compelling evidence to the contrary.

Thankyou for reading :angel:

Wasalam

Sources:

1. J.M Rodwell's foreword to his anti-islamic transliteration of the Holy Quran, http://www.one-pen.com/readarticle.php?article_id=7 However even he displays a profound respect for the complexity of the language.

2. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99078.htm

3. http://www.llnl.gov/str/Ryerson.html

4. Some examples of Mountain Faults, http://erp-web.er.usgs.gov/reports/annsum/...n%20Faults' http://www.uoregon.edu/~millerm/DVactive.html

5. For a list please see http://www.main-vision.com/richard/mountain.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny#List_of_orogenies

For more on the process please see source 6 of my opening and this link Insha'Allah.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_c...ny_and_Collapse

6. The Holy Quran text translation and commentary, new revised edition, Footnote 3319.

Edited by Servidor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I would like to commence this “First Affirmative Rebuttal” with a serious point of order. Once a post for this debate has been made, it is very bad form for a debater to come back hours or even a day later and change that post. How can one’s opponent fairly be expected to respond carefully if the target is a moving one? Servidor has not only edited his First Affirmative Rebuttal hours after I had commenced my response, but he has even gone back and edited his opening statement a day after my own was committed to this forum.

If Servidor is unwilling or unable to engage in argument according to the traditional rules of honesty and fair debate, we can declare this exercise a farce and move on to other more fruitful endeavors. The continued altering of arguments already committed to the board is grounds for termination of this “debate.” Servidor is encouraged to stop doing so.

THHuxley’s First Negative Rebuttal:

Conceptually, the purpose of a “Rebuttal” is to “rebut” the arguments previously offered by your debate opponent, not merely repeat the arguments of your own opening statements. This is particularly true if your opponent has already provided substantive challenges and refutations of those original arguments.

Instead, Servidor has presented us primarily with mere repetition of his original claims, and with so little new substance that it can be responded to by simply directing he reader to the original response.

But more troubling is that this most recent post seems liberally salted with irrelevant references to other threads and other forum members not involved in this debate, as well as the occasional personal slur. Those will not be responded to in this rebuttal.

Instead, I will roughly follow the same structure as my opening and cover those points of contention that appear to require additional development:

Earthquakes: The Elephant in the Qur’anic Living Room

While Serividor seems anxious to label it as “unfortunately poor tactic,” it appears to be of great enough concern to him that he responded with a two paragraph repetition of his claim that the ayaat in question have nothing to do with “earthquakes.” This is in fact critically important to him, since if he is wrong on this issue then the Qur’an itself is wrong, and the debate it over; game, set, match.

His first objection is little more than a fallacy of ad hominem. Rather than address the substance of my claim, he attempts to attack me personally as incompetent. He makes the claim that I am unqualified to judge the issue, since I do not “speak any Arabic.” In actuality, do we have any evidence that Servidor actually speaks Arabic either? His entire argument regarding the word “tameeda” was originally cribbed (without reference) from Zakir Naik, (1) and is not even his own. Further more, Servidor (at a mere 16 years of age) certainly cannot pretend expertise in the Qur’anic version of Arabic, a language he himself calls “this language with such complexity.” One can only puzzle at Servidor’s intention with this otherwise irrelevant attack on his opponent’s language skills.

Yes, I speak very little Arabic (though not “none”). Of course, this is why I rely exclusively on professional translators of the Qur’an, and specifically those that have no apologetic axe to grind, and who therefore can be trusted to translate objectively. All of them I have found (including Zakir Naik’s agenda driven translation) are consistent with these ayaat being references to earthquakes.

Servidor’s only actually substantive claim here remains that the word “tameeda” does not explicitly mean “earthquake,” and he seems to be willing to prescribe to the authors of the Qur’an what words they “should have used” had they wanted to get that particular idea across. There are many reasons why a different word would have been used, if for poetic purposes only. But why should it be mandatory to use only one word for earthquake when so many others are available?

For example, on February 9, 1971 I experienced a serious earthquake at my boyhood home in California. Here is one of the opening paragraphs from a commemorative magazine titled, 6:02 AM: The 1971 Sylmar Earthquake. (2)

The tremor began at 6:02 AM local time and grew into a minute long shudder that was the worst recorded seismic event in Los Angeles history. The heaviest death toll was in the San Fernando Valley, epicenter of the jolting, rumbling temblor. Streets were strewn with shattered glass, concrete and bricks, walls buckled in major buildings, bridges cracked and some fell, freeways split, and thousands of homes suffered structural and internal destruction from tumbling furnishings. The shock closed Olive View sanitarium, where two died, and which was declared a total loss. Upper floors of its main mental health building collapsed to the ground floor. The convulsion was so intense it briefly knocked out some voice communications at the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, according to a spokesman.

In this one paragraph, the earthquake is referred to with six different words, all of which mean “earthquake,” but not a single one of which actually uses the word itself. Does the failure to use the word “earthquake” mean the author was actually referring to something else? Of course not.

Servidor’s argument here depends upon the reader believing that the Qur’an means something other than what its clear language would seem to mean. That is an apologetic excuse, not a reasonable conclusion from the actual wording of the ayaat themselves.

Servidors “alternative” to Earthquakes: Bigger Earthquakes

Servidor’s critical challenge to present some alternative to earthquakes for the word “tameeda” appears to have been recognized by him, although he continues to be at a loss as to what actually to do about it. He writes for example that “Convergent plate boundaries are collision zones, without the Mountains absorbing their force the earth would indeed shake, sway and move in the true sense of the word tameeda.” But what he ignores is that at these collisions zones, the earth indeed still shakes, sways and moves anyway!

Secondly, what is the difference between the shaking, swaying and moving he envisions here and ordinary earthquakes? In fact, all such movement would be earthquakes!

In other words, he has provided no alternative at all, but simply replaced one set of earthquakes with another one.

Now, Servidor makes no attempt to respond to my demonstrations that he was factually wrong when he claimed that continental collisions cause plate motion to cease. He makes no effort to respond to my demonstration that continental collision zones and their mountains are the most unstable areas on the planet.

Instead, we find him actually misrepresenting his sources to say things they do not say!

Here, for example, is how he grossly misstates the position of one of his sources:

As Katie Walter said Mountain faults "....absorb a significant portion of the convergence..." she was refering to the convergence between India and Asia.

But when we actually go to the source and put this tiny snippet of a quotation in context, we find she was saying something completely different:

The function of the faults is a subject of considerable geophysical controversy. Faults may define major discontinuities in Earth's lithosphere (the outer 100 kilometers of the crust that define the plates in plate tectonics) and thus absorb a significant portion of the convergence between India and Asia. Or they may be shallow features that play a secondary role in a more fluid lithosphere. (3)

Amazing! What do we actually find?

There is no mention of “Mountain faults” at all, just faults in general. And she is not describing what faults actually do, but simply ticking off one of several controversial possibilities. Further more, Servidor does appear to understand what she means by “absorb the convergence,” since her own article makes no claims to “stability” whatsoever. Not only does she explicitly observe that the collision is “ongoing” (showing again that Servidor was wrong when he claimed that plate motion stops) but she describes the collision as “a terrestrial wresting match” and “violent enough to push up the Himalayas, shove Southeast Asia further and further southeast, and perhaps most impressively, raise the Tibetan Plateau-a landmass as large as two-thirds of the lower 48 states-to an average elevation of 5,000 meters.”

Where here can Servidor pretend to find any justification for his comment that “she explains that clearly Mountain Faults have absorbed the convergence of the plates, thus giving ample stability.” In fact, there is no such statement anywhere in this source. The concept (let alone the word) of “stability” does not exist in this (or frankly, any other) source.

I leave it to the reader as to whether or not this complete misuse of this source was simply an honest mistake or a direct attempt to deceive.

Servidor’s further apparent inability to decide for himself whether “The movements of the two colliding continents cease as the plates become welded together” (from his first post), or whether “The lithospheric plates are still consistently moving as such the continents are always drifting towards or away from each other” (from his rebuttal) requires little comment beyond the fact that it is a direct contradiction.

Continental Zip: More of Servidor’s Imaginary Geology

Perhaps Servidor’s most persistent absurdity is that the elimination of mountains would provide “more room for plates to collide.” The simple falsehood of this statement can be shown with a simple experiment in the geometry of surfaces.

Take a sheet of printer paper, and place it flat on the surface of a desk. This represents a tectonic plate floating on the asthenosphere below.

Now take a second identical sheep of paper, and crumple it up. This represents the folding and faulting of mountains on a tectonic plate. Then (leaving it crumpled) place the crumpled paper on top of the flat sheet. Which sheet (tectonic plate) takes up the most space on the desktop (asthenosphere) and which takes up less?

Mountain building actually makes plates smaller, leaving more room for other plates and plate movement than those without mountains at all. This is the exact opposite of what Servidor has claimed. (4)

But again, since plate motion is determined by the asthenosphere and not the plates themselves, it does not matter how much “room they have.” And as previously cited, plates are already moving at their top speeds. All the room in the world will not enable a human sprinter to run a one-minute-mile. And all the room in the world will not enable tectonic plates to move faster than 10 cm per year.

While Servidor concedes some errors (the contribution of the earth’s rotation for example) he persists in others. For example, he continue to insist that plates “build up momentum.” Certainly, plates have momentum, but they are not “building up” any more than they already have. To build up momentum, you must either increase the speed of a plate, or make it more massive. As Servidor has failed to provide a mechanism for doing either, the claim is simply another example of an imaginary geology that has neither evidence nor scientific purpose.

Qur’anic Vacillation: Are Mountains Fixed or Not?

It is odd to see that Servidor continues to quote even the Qur’an out of context. It is particularly troubling that he persists in misrepresenting a prophecy of the end times as a description of the present world.

To do so, he must ignore (and he does) all the other ayaat that state unambiguously that mountains (and even the Earth itself) are fixed, along with the many more that describe the movement and destruction of mountains at the end of time. It requires him to insist that none of these ayaat actually say what their clear language indicates, but that all of them must be reinterpreted to mean something different.

In so doing, he is attempting to rewrite the Qur’an to agree with the incontrovertible evidence of modern geology. And there has to be a sin in there somewhere.

Summary of Huxley’s First Rebuttal

The core of Servidor’s failure here is that it first and foremost depends on an absurd reinterpretation of the Qur’ans clear language. The Qur’an says that mountains keep the earth from shaking, which they quite demonstrable do not as the Earth is constantly shaking somewhere, most commonly where there are mountains.

So he has reinterpreted it to imply something that the Qur’an does not actually say, i.e. that mountains “stabilize” the earth, a very different concept. “Stability” is the admission that the Earth actually does shake after all, just not as much as it might in different circumstances.

So his next challenge is to provide a theory as to how mountains would accomplish such a thing. Sadly, he builds his theory on ideas that are proven false by the evidence itself.

His theory requires mountains to halt continental collisions. They demonstrably do not. (3) (5)

His theory requires a mechanism to increase the speed of plate movement. Such a mechanism does not exist. (6)

His theory requires a new class of earth “shaking, swaying and moving” other than earthquakes. Such movements do not exist.

His theory requires the magic removal of the entire geological feature he is pretending to be explaining. As such it runs no risk of ever actually being testable. He may as well be debating how many jinn can dance of the head of a pin.

Sources:

1) http://www.irf.net/quran_bible_in_the_light_of_science_I.doc

2) 6:02 AM: The 1971 Sylmar Earthquake, by the staff of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 1971.

3) http://www.llnl.gov/str/Ryerson.html

4) http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10k.html

5) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/himalaya.html

6) http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/eart...lr/plates1.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

*Edited to correct grammar mistakes, bolden words and make the conclusion easier to read however not by the subtracting or adding words, rather by making the points categorically set up so as to make it easier to read*

(bismillah)

(salam) All :)

And yes I admitt I did edit the rebuttal, this was not to add some brand new arguements. Rather I simply elaborated or made certain points bolder. A good friend of mine read the debate and said more or less you did not refute his point that only TWO mountains come from this process. I explained and showed that I did, my original response was merely "there are a vast amount of mountains formed via this process" and I gave a reference to a list. In layman terms some of the crucial parts of my rebuttal seemingly needed some clarification. I do apologise if brother Huxley honestly feels that this has effected the debate in such detrimental fashion I can of course removed the clarifications Insha'Allah.

Now he starts more or less back on Quranic arabic and baseically says, if Tameeda does not imply and earthquake then why such a large response? The answer is simple, this is a huge point of this debate. I have tried to explain as best I can for everyone, in as few words as possible. For the sake of brevity, I will lay out all nice and simple. A. Tameeda does not mean earthquake, B. The word earthquake is not present in any of the Holy Ayaats in question, C. Tameeda does not imply an earthquake so now we come to our conclusion D. Tameeda cannot mean nor imply that mountains stop earthquakes.

I made a point yesterday that brother Huxley has avoided, he claims I am adding words to the Holy Ayaats to polish them up and make them coincide with Geology. The extreme opposite is happening, he is adding the word earthquake into the equation to try and allude the reader into believeing that is what the Holy Ayaats imply. Next I am first of all 15 :angel: second I admitt I am not a master of Quranic Arabic, however I do speak a decent amount and of course anytime I do not understand it I can go to the Dictionaries I have no lack of resources for understanding Quranic Arabic. As far as Dr. Zakir Naiks "agenda" driven translation :lol: anyone can see he is merely giving what is in reality the closest to the most literal meaning of the word in english. His opponent Dr. William Campbell has mastered arabic so as to slander and malign Muslims. Read the debate, Dr. Campbell does not object. Such an objection would quite simply be preposterous.

Tameeda is not a poetic term for earthquake, even the transliterations would point this out. However I will have to bring this back to semmantics. Allah Subhan Wa Ta'alaa Glorified be He Says in Surat al-Mulk Holy Ayaah 16 'Aamintum man fee alssama-i an yakhsifa bikumu al-arda fa-itha hiya tamooru' this Holy Ayaah can be transliterated as 'Do ye feel secure that He Who is in heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes (as in an earthquake)?'

More or less brother Huxley the poetic term for the shaking as in an earthquake is I believe "yakhsifa bikumu" what we have in the Holy Ayaats in question is "Tameeda bikum". Your arguement is null and void, and I would draw attention to the fact so that everyone takes note brother Huxley has now twice tried to argue that the Holy Quran was refering to earthquakes. This shows he more or less knows I am correct on the points I have made as such he is desperately trying to make a case for the simply wrong assumption that the Holy Ayaats in question are refering to earth quakes.

Also I did not adress the seismo charts he gave yesterday, more or less Tameeda in its most literal meaning translated means to shake, sway or move. It does not mean light almost unnoticeable vibrations and it does not mean earthquake. It is rather amazing to see brother Huxley bounce back and forth between extreme opposites. Fact is tameeda would imply that the earth without mountains, would just constantly sway, shake or move directly "under us". The way that I have outlined this, is to explain that life would more or less be impossible. I will get deeper into this after adressing the rest of brother Huxleys claims Insha'Allah.

Now on the area of what is the alternatives to the earthquakes I gave a very concise reply. See the lithosphereic plates are as he points out always moving, in the colission zones they collide. Brother Huxley himself has announced many a time in other discussions that certain colission zones are completely inhabitable due to the problems posed by the plate interaction. Without mountains the entire earth would be just like these colission zones. For example let us pretend that X and Y are two seperate masses, both move with extreme momentum. (1) Neither are stopping they keep moving forward in between them is Z, now Z is just random sediments, rocks etc. As X and Y move forward Z is caught in between, although Z is solid it is caught up in between and crushed, that is the ferocity of this momentum. Now X and Y compress upwards and downwards, as a result of this extreme pressure Z becomes a solid structure that now but natural from such compression, has X and Y both attached to it. However X and Y are stabilized although still moving, they do not make it through Z, rather Z keeps them in check. Remember brother Huxley claim two mountains are formed via this process? Well his fourth source for his latest response agrees with me "Most mountains were created from tectonic forces that elevate, fold, and fault rock materials." So thankyou brother Huxley. (2)

Now imagine if we eliminate Z from this equation? Now imagine there are 12 large masses just like X and Y along with several smaller yet just as solid masses. That is the reality of our earth, we have have 12 large plates and several smaller ones. All of which are solid, rocky structures that move around with such momentum. We now know that almost anywhere that these plates become a massive threat a mountain arises. When they converge we get oregenies, which are mountains formed like I just explained or via subduction etc. When the plates diverge and threaten to clash, a mid oceanic mountain range forms in between the possible area of colission. (3) These mountains form for the purpose of stabilizing the earth. Not only by stopping converging plates, but by keeping plates and continents together and preventing future colissions.

Hence the alternative would be continual colissions and inhabitable land masses such as the colission zones. So no I do not replace eathquakes with larger earthquakes, I replace earthquakes with a world wide inhabitable colission zone.

Now we see brother Huxley decided to read my source, however this merely exposes his bias reading again. He knows aswell as I do that Katie Walter was refering to the Indo-Asian Mountain faults. Funny when the Quran Says shake he can convert that in his mind into earthquake, but when a lady writes a paper on continental colissions and the "Tibetan Plateau" "young mountain ranges" (all terms extracted from the source you can read it for yourself Insha'Allah)well in brother Huxleys mind she must be refering to some other form of faults :lol: . Now I never said the plates cease moving, brother Huxley continually tries to act as though I made such a statement, when in reality I did not. I merely stated what she clearly stated Mountain Faults and she was refering the Indo-Asian Mountain faults absorb the convergence of the plates. Convergence means they are coming towards eachother with the aforementioned momentum that I explained. If the mountains faults are absorbing this convergence, then what are they doing everyone? Successfully giving ample stability to the earth.

More evidence that the Mountain Faults absorb the convergence is due to the fact that visibly they usually take the brunt of seismic activity, kind of like a lightening rod. Ensuring that the seismic activities is isolated and no where near as powerful as it could be. The energy is dissipated via localized seismic activities on the Mountain faults, just like the lightening is drawn towards the lightening rod. Although the rod is hit, it ensures that lightening does not strike the surrounding objects in the area. Mountain faults absorb the seismic activity so usually no habitable continent feels the convergence of the plates. If these mountains where not present then, our habitable continents would be the brunt of all out seismic activity constantly, that is if mountains did not form.

Now yes the plates are still moving slowly and surely however their convergence is being absorbed by the mountain faults, as such they are not going to collide any time soon not in a detrimental manner anyway, and this is only because of the mountains.

Now I would like to cease argueing on the subject as to whether or not there would be more room for colissions without mountains, I feel that this is just drawing attention from the crux of the topic. Brother Huxley is the type to draw fire so to speak from the target by setting up various red herrings in hopes that we will argue this point rather than stay on topic.

Now finally back onto this end of times prophecy. Brother Huxley persistently accuses me of quoting the Holy Ayaah out of context, what happened to trusting the transliterators? :unsure: Yusuf Ali agreed with me. Let us review some more translations of Surat an Naml Holy Ayaah 88.

Yusuf Ali: 'Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed: but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is) the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.'

Shakir: 'And you see the mountains, you think them to be solid, and they shall pass away as the passing away of the cloud -- the handiwork of Allah Who has made every thing thoroughly; surely He is Aware of what you do.'

Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan: 'And you will see the mountains and think them solid, but they shall pass away as the passing away of the clouds. The Work of Allah, Who perfected all things, verily! He is Well-Acquainted with what you do.'

The last is the most explicit. However if we review the Holy Ayaah, "You see" who see's? Us and we "think" the mountains to be solid, not moving completely still. However they shall pass away as the passing of clouds. Now from here there are two prominent interpertations. One is the poetic term, Yusuf Ali in footnote 3318 wrotes "This is so in the present phrase of phenomenal things, both literally and figuratively. There seems nothing more firm or fixed or permanent than the eternal hills: yet when the new order of things comes and the whole new world is brought into being, they will be as flimsy and insubstantial as clouds. So, in the Revelation of things in the spiritual world, persons or things or ideas that seems so great and firmly established now will pass away like mere fancies and give way to the Reality of Allah."

The second interpertation is that the Holy Ayaah means that although we saw the Mountains and assumed they are so firm and solid they can simply never move, near the end of times we will and have noticed that they are moving slowly just as clouds. Furthermore weather, wind, and streams and so on and so forth to bring mountains down. For example http://www.wisconline.com/wisconsin/geopro...rnhighland.html in Wiscon they have many worn down mountains. This would also be a fufillment of the end of times prophecy. So remain well grounded in the reality that I have not taken the Holy Ayaah out of context at all as according to the language and the translators this particular Holy Ayaah refers to present phenomena.

So have my arguements been refuted? I do not think so, Mountains indeed stabilize the earth so let us just recap review real quickly.

A. Most Mountains are formed via folding from colissions, they weld or suture the plates that were about collide together.

B. After this first act of stabilization, the Mountain faults continue to absorb the convergence of the plates.

C. The mountains in both of these actions prevent or slow any future colissions. And now of course:

D. Whenever these future colissions do take place, we now know of course a mountain will arise from it and stabilize the plates and repeat the process I have described all over again.

I compromised my speed accumaltion mechanism yesterday, the fact that he rhetorically brings this point up is due to the fact that he knows he hasnt refuted anything. The mechanism was merely a mistake on my part, Alhamdulillah Allah Knows best, I am not infallible. However I have demonstrated that even if we remove the mechanism, the momentum of the plates remains present and the stabilization process of mountains remains.

I have provided the evidence and explained the process quite clearly, the burden is now upon brother Huxley. He needs to cease argueing semmantics which has been a crucial loss for him and start demostrating how my sources and explanation is wrong. As of yet he has not provided any compelling evidence for his claims rather he is day dreaming. "There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it." Pierre-Paul Grasse.

Thankyou for reading.

Wasalam

Sources:

1. This link is an answer to the question "How can large mountains be formed when the plates are moving so slow?" the Geologist explains that it his the extreme momentum. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99078.htm

2. Brother Huxleys fourth source http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/10k.html confirmes my statements also please see my fifth source from my post yesterday Insha'Allah.

3. For more on mid oceanic mountain ridges please see http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explor...ncepts/mor.html and http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

Edited by Servidor
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
And yes I admitt I did edit the rebuttal, this was not to add some brand new arguements. Rather I simply elaborated or made certain points bolder. A good friend of mine read the debate and said more or less you did not refute his point that only TWO mountains come from this process. I explained and showed that I did, my original response was merely "there are a vast amount of mountains formed via this process" and I gave a reference to a list. In layman terms some of the crucial parts of my rebuttal seemingly needed some clarification. I do apologise if brother Huxley honestly feels that this has effected the debate in such detrimental fashion I can of course removed the clarifications.

Simply do not make any editions at all. The “elaboration” or “bolding” of a point after the statement has been submitted is an illegitimate and arguably dishonest debate tactic. The statement as submitted must stand on its own with out additions, subtractions, correction or adjustments. It is breathtaking to see that you have continued to edit your posts, even with this most recent submission. This is your last chance.

Stop editing your posts after they are submitted, or I will terminate this debate.

THHuxley’s Second Negative Rebuttal:

Earthquakes: The Elephant in the Qur’anic Living Room

Let us begin by taking a good hard look at Servidor’s continued attempt to “rationalize” away” the clear language of the Qur’an regarding its use of the word “tameeda.” This is (as he admits now) a critical problem for him, since if the author’s of the Qur’an intended theses ayaat to be a reference to earthquakes, then the entire debate is over. He outlines three points and a conclusion to make his case, They are:

A. Tameeda does not mean earthquake,

B. The word earthquake is not present in any of the Holy Ayaats in question,

C. Tameeda does not imply an earthquake so now we come to our conclusion

D. Tameeda cannot mean nor imply that mountains stop earthquakes.

Of those those points, only the second one is obviously true. In fact, points one and two illegitimately beg the question by assuming Servidor’s desired conclusion. This is called “arguing in a vicious circle.”

The fact that the word “earthquake” does not appear in these ayaat tells us nothing about the words that do appear there. It certainly does not tell us what the authors of the Qur’an intended tameeda to mean. This can be understood only in the context of the usage.

The word so perfectly describes what earthquakes actually do to the earth that most Muslim apologists explicitly claim that is exactly what it means. (1) (2) (3) In fact, Zakir Naik is the only such apologist I have ever heard try to argue otherwise. Even the professional translators regularly translate the word as quake.

And as shown by my example from the descriptions of the 1972 Sylmar Temblor, the fact that one particular word is not used does not mean all the other words that can be used must somehow refer to something other than a quake. In fact, in his own post (described in detail below) Servidor does exactly the same thing, using the word "seismic activity" as a substitute for "earthquake" five times in a single paragraph.

Servidor’s entire argument here is a desperate quibble designed to make excuses for the otherwise obvious meaning of the Qur’an. That Servidor simply compounds his problem here by being unable to come up with a legitimate alternate meaning for tameeda is merely icing on the rhetorical cake.

Now, since Servidor has admitted he is also not a “master of Quranic Arabic” we can dispense with his fallacy of ad hominem and return to the substance of the debate.

Servidor’s Irrelevant Arguments: Attacking Things His Opponent Did Not Even Say

Servidor inexplicably writes:

Also I did not adress the seismo charts he gave yesterday

Among the many reasons for this, I can only assume one would be that I didn’t give any seismographic charts yesterday. This is a “response” to an argument I never presented in the first place. In fact, Servidor has suddenly begun to respond to many such “arguments I never made,” as well as attribute to me things I have never said.

For another example, he goes on to write that “Brother Huxley himself has announced many a time in other discussions that certain collision zones are completely uninhabitable due to the problems posed by the plate interaction.” Not only is this statement a complete fabrication (I have never said anything even remotely resembling this!) but he isn’t even referring to this debate, but to “other discussion” elsewhere. As far as “bad debate behavior” goes, this is right up there with editing your posts after they have already been responded to.

I will remind him that should other comments in “other discussions” become fair game for his debate, it will not serve him well.

Servidors “alternative” to Earthquakes: Bigger Earthquakes

Again, Servidor attempts to describe an imaginary geology in which a magical event has occurred in the attempt to come up with an alternative meaning for tameeda from earthquakes. Except for the step in which mountains are magically made to disappear, he describes (not very accurately) what tectonically happens to the earths plates today, i.e. what is already happening at this very moment! But we already know what the “shaking, swaying and moving” that these events produce are called; they are called “earthquakes.”

When his scenario is complete, this is all he leaves us with as an alternative for tameeda. More earthquakes.

Continental Zip: More of Servidor’s Imaginary Geology

Servidor seems to struggle sometimes keeping track of his own arguments. The thread began with a model in which mountains were supposed to stabilize the earth during continental collisions. These are (after all) the only plate collisions that are described by his model of “continental zip.” But there are two other types of collision, none of which his model accounts for.

The first of these is the one actually responsible for most of the mountains on the planet. It is where an oceanic plate (which has no continent on it) collides with a continental plate. As you can see by the illustration below, the mountains are formed only on the continental plate, and not between the. They do nothing to slow down or “stabilize” the motion of the plates. The oceanic plate simply dives under the continental plate.

Fig21oceancont.gif

Ocean/continent collisions such as these are responsible for mountain ranges such as the Rockies and the Andes. They have nothing to do with Servidor’s model. But they are responsible for massive earthquakes such as the 1906 San Francisco Quake.

The second type of collision is responsible for those mountains associated with “Island Arcs.” They occur when two oceanic plates (neither of which have a continent) collide. As you can see by the illustration below, the mountains are actually volcanic islands formed only on one of the two plates, and not between them. They do nothing to slow down or “stabilize” the motion of the plates. One plate simply dives under the other.

Fig21oceanocean.gif

Ocean/ocean collisions such as these are responsible for island arcs such as Indonesia and the Philippines. They have nothing to do with Servidor’s model. But they are responsible for massive earthquakes such as last year’s Banda Acheh Quake and the resulting tsunami.

The third type of collision is the only one that is considered by Servidor’s model, and it is by far the most rare of the three. It is so rare that it is currently occurring at only two places on the planet; Africa-Eurasia (forming the Alps) and India-Eurasia (forming the Himalaya). In this case, two continental plates collide, and since continental crust is so much lighter than oceanic crust, the crust itself (but not the plate underneath it) resists subduction, creating mountains. But as you can see by the illustration below, the mountains still do nothing to slow down or “stabilize” the motion of the plates. One plate continues to simply dive under the other.

Fig21contcont.gif

Continent/continent collisions such as these are responsible for the Alps and the Himalaya. They are the only ones that have anything to do with Servidor’s model. But they also directly contradict his model as well.

For starters, they are still responsible for massive earthquakes such as last year’s Pakistan Quake. And while Servidor would have us believe they are stopping the collision, in fact the collision continues unabated. In fact, while the India-Eurasia collision has been going on for about 50 million years, the real serious mountain building is a far more recent event.

After the collision, the slow continuous convergence of the two plates over millions of years pushed up the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau to their present heights. Most of this growth occurred during the past 10 million years. (4)

So Servidor’s claim that such mountain building stops crustal motion is absolutely not true anywhere in the entire surface of the planet earth.

Let consider now the “magic step” of “removing the mountains” between colliding continents. What would happen?

Servidor seems to forget that this was originally the case in reality. There originally were no mountains between India and Eurasia. So we know exactly what would happen were his “magic step” to take place.

The continents would continue to collide. New mountains would form to replace them. Plate motion would not cease. The collision zones would be no more “stable” than they are already; i.e. they would still be the most unstable regions on the planet.

And during that entire process, the only “shaking, swaying or moving” that would be experienced is earthquakes.

Remember brother Huxley claim two mountains are formed via this process? Well his fourth source for his latest response agrees with me "Most mountains were created from tectonic forces that elevate, fold, and fault rock materials." So thankyou brother Huxley.

Servidor’s misunderstanding of my comment is explained in the discussion above.

Servidor’s Use of Sources: Attributing Things His Sources Never Said.

In Servidor’s attempt to defend himself from the fraudulent attribution contained in his previous post, he frantically tries to distract the reader from the previous fake claims. His original claim was that the source “explains that clearly Mountain Faults have absorbed the convergence of the plates, thus giving ample stability.”

In fact (as pointed out) the source makes no such explanation at all. It gives two possible but “controversial” explanations of faults, but does not express agreement with either of them. Servidor picks one of the two (the one he likes best) and falsely states (and does so here yet again) that she “clearly” explains something she never even agreed with.

He then moves on from merely mischaracterizing her position to including the total falsehood that she “clearly explains” that this supposed (but not necessarily true) situation “gives ample stability,” when there is no such an explanation anywhere in the source. The words and the concept of “stability” are never even considered once in the entire source.

The source simply does not say what Servidor says it does.

In fact, there has never been a single source that Servidor was able to produce that ever actually gave mountains credit for “stabilizing” anything. This is why he is continuously forced to misrepresent sources as agreeing with him when they do no such thing. This is why he keeps tacking on the false statement “thus giving stability to earth” to the end of discussions that actually allow for no such conclusion.

Servidor Abandons His Model: Maybe "Tameeda" Means “Earthquakes” After All?

Servidor has until now taken great pains to pretend that tameeda does not actually mean “earthquake.” How then do we account for the following discussion?

More evidence that the Mountain Faults absorb the convergence is due to the fact that visibly they usually take the brunt of seismic activity, kind of like a lightening rod. Ensuring that the seismic activities is isolated and no where near as powerful as it could be. The energy is dissipated via localized seismic activities on the Mountain faults, just like the lightening is drawn towards the lightening rod. Although the rod is hit, it ensures that lightening does not strike the surrounding objects in the area. Mountain faults absorb the seismic activity so usually no habitable continent feels the convergence of the plates. If these mountains where not present then, our habitable continents would be the brunt of all out seismic activity constantly, that is if mountains did not form.

:lol: Ignoring that there is almost nothing in this discussion that is true, every time Servidor types “seismic activity,” he actually means “earthquake.” They are, after all, the exact same thing.

In actuality, it is critical for readers to notice what has happened here.

Servidor has completely abandoned his original model (that without mountains plates would move faster and crash into each harder), and replaced it with an entirely new model in which “mountain faults absorb” the ordinary collisions we already experience.

In another stunning example of bad debate form, Servidor has introduced in to a rebuttal a completely new argument that was not part of his opening statement.

A more realistic debater would simply have conceded the debate.

Other Miscellaneous Observations

I note with amusement the following comment:

Now I would like to cease argueing on the subject as to whether or not there would be more room for colissions without mountains, I feel that this is just drawing attention from the crux of the topic. Brother Huxley is the type to draw fire so to speak from the target by setting up various red herrings in hopes that we will argue this point rather than stay on topic.

I have never before in a debate had an opponent call his own argument a “red herring.” I have no choice but to consider that a complete concession of the point, and a complete abandonment of your original model of “continental zip.”

Servidor’s continued attempt to defend his out of context quotation of the Qur’an requires nothing more than the observation that every translation provided specifies that the “passing away of the mountains” is a future event. Every single one.

And the Qur’an explicitly says in at least 13 different ayaat that this will occur at the end times. There are no exceptions. Not a single one.

Summary of Huxley’s Second Rebuttal

The core of Servidor’s failure here continues to rest on his absurd reinterpretation of the Qur’ans clear language. But even he is unable to keep up the façade. While continuing to insist that tameeda does not mean “earthquakes,’ he has failed (for a third post in a row) to provide an actual alternative. And in one ill advised discussion of “mountain faults” he essentially admits that tameeda and “seismic activity” (i.e. earthquakes) are the same thing five times in a single paragraph.

He has yet to provide a single source that actually says “mountains stabilize the earth,” and has depended on misrepresenting his sources to make it sound as if they say what they do not.

He has abandoned his argument that elimination of mountains would give plates more room to “gain momentum.” In fact, he has abandoned his original model completely and replaced it with a completely new argument that “mountain faults” absorb seismic activity.

He has abandoned his original claim that mountains stop continental collisions.

In short, as we approach our closing statement, his entire argument appears to be in complete disarray.

Sources:

1) http://www.answering-christianity.com/func...f_mountains.htm

2) http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_se...?service_id=582

3) http://jews-for-Allah.org/Why-Believe-in-A...an/mountain.htm

4) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam) Everyone :)

:angel: And brother Huxley I have only edited my posts to correct my wording etc I know for a fact one of your friends read both my original and the updated, and I am confident he will tell you that I all did was elaborate and make the rebuttals bolder.

Now everyone see this is my concise closing statement, as such I can not type up a detailed rebuttal to brother Huxley's last post. I will explain that I did confuse lol one of his posts with another dialogue :Hijabi: he he I apologise that part was irrelevant however brother Huxley has once used this same preposterous polemic that is being used else where now. So let me summarize our debate as I understand it thus far.

Brother Huxley he doesnt accept the laws and reality of Quranic Arabic, more or less he is saying throw the grammar rules out because an english article could substantiate his literalism. I hate to say but the critique for the meaning of the word Tameeda is not brother Huxleys agenda driven google search, rather I would recommend the dictionaries and none of them will tell you that the word Tameeda has anything to do with an earthquake. Rather it quite simply means to sway, shake or move this is an undisputeable fact.

The poetic term for earthquake is "yakhsifa bikumu" brother Huxley says he trusts the translators, well they translate this "as in an earthquake". It doesnt matter how many, unlearned young Muslims make websites claiming to the contrary it just simply doesnt change the meaning of the word Tameeda and brother Huxley knows this. If we go by this logic we could google, "Einstein the plagarist" and come up with a vast amount of hits, however I do hope that we all would refrain from concluding based upon such poor insight that Albert Einstein was a plagarist.

Now he assumed that my little X Y and Z explanation was refering to only one type of mountain formation on the same note, he actually gave a chart which substantiated everything I was explaining, his attempt at saving face was that earthquakes are caused by these mountains. I am sorry but I have no idea as to what brother Huxley is talking about here. Mountains do not cause earthquakes (1). The actual letter explanation that I gave yesterday was refering to all fold mountains which are caused by the pressure of two plates compressing upwards and downwards to create mountain ranges and the number of such mountains exceeds two in fact they are the majority. (2)

Now my source, i.e Katie Walter stated "and thus absorb a significant portion of the convergence between India and Asia." in laymans terms, she agreed with me even if it is a Geophysical dispute, she and many others agree with me. The evidence that mountain faults absorb the convergence is due to the fact that they clearly take the brunt of violent seismic activity. The energy is dissipated via localized seismic activities on the Mountain faults, just like the lightening is drawn towards the lightening rod. Although the rod is hit, it ensures that lightening does not strike the surrounding objects in the area.

Brother Huxley has now said I have abandone an older model, this is quite simply not true and is a desperate attempt by brother Huxley to try and give off the idea that he destroyed my arguements before and as a result I abandoned them, screaming "Noooooooo" on my knees in the rain :lol: . It is just preposterous, I have stated from my very opening that my Geophysical model is in progress, we are working on it Insha'Allah and believe me when I say brother Huxley will be the first to know when it is released. Insha'Allah. However on the same note I explained that Mountain Faults already demonstratebly absorb the convergence of plates, hence they do prevent colissions and he doesnt dispute this conclusion except on a basis that it is still a controversy, reminds me of when Dr. Michael Tooley tried to dispute about the Big Bang model in 1994 I am sure it is rather hard to accept when a theory is being substantiated and it contradicts your belief system and I am happy for brother Huxley, he can seemingly go down with the ship.

Now if we remove Z and all of the other Z's in the world from my model, we would have a world wide colission zone. If Z was absent the plates would collide, continually because Z was the sediments, sedimentary rocks and so on and so forth between the oceanic plate and the continental even before being formed into a mountain. Hence Z even when it was not a mountain was playing a crucial role in the fact that the plates were not colliding.

Now he does not offer any real evidence that mountains do not stabilize the earth, despite the fact that I demanded it yesterday, and now he is at his closing statement without an arguement except an erreneous assumption on the arabic word Tameeda. He doesnt refute at all how I explained that Mountains stop the earth from shaking, swaying or moving under us in the true sense of the word Tameeda.

He doesnt offer any source that says I am wrong. That is why he even up until now tries to argue that Tameeda is refering to earthquakes. I offered a much more appropiate explanation. If Z from my model was not present and did not form mountains, then the plates would all collide constantly this would make the earth under us shake, sway and move in the sense of the word. Since Tameeda does not mean earthquake my explanation is correct and much more in sink with ideas and theories of the amazing earlier Muslim geologists of the past. The language of the Holy Quran is indeed clear and It is just quite simply not refering to earthquakes and I offered an explanation as to what It was refering to. And brother Huxley knows that far more qualified Muslims agree with me.

On the end of times prophecy, please just see my older responses he has pushed this red herring solely for the purpose of drawing your attention away from the crux of the topic.

Now I stated yesterday in my conclusion four very simple facts, that demonstrate that mountains stop the earth from under us from shaking, swaying or moving in the true sense of the word Tameeda. I feel that it is more or less appropiate to refresh everyones memories because this is what I want everyone to take home with them from my arguements.

A. Most Mountains are formed via folding from colissions, they weld or suture the plates that were about collide together.

B. After this first act of stabilization, the Mountain faults continue to absorb the convergence of the plates.

C. The mountains in both of these actions prevent or slow any future colissions. And now

D. And whenever these colissions do happen to take place, we now know of course a mountain will arise from it and stabilize the plates and repeat the process that I have thus far described all over again.

There is no refutation to these simple facts. Brother Huxley has more or less tried to debate on the basis of few choice selectioms of my statements and he still fails I am actually, a little surprised he is usually better at forming red herrings.

At the beginning of this debate I explained that I knew brother Huxley would not compromise his position. Thus the point of this debate was to demonstrate who's conclusion is based upon geological evidence and vice versa. Well I have given my arguements and sources and I leave it to you dear brother or sister, to come to your own rational conclusion on this matter. Thankyou dear brother Huxley for participating in this debate and thankyou everyone for reading.

'Qaloo subhanaka la ilma lana illa ma allamtana innaka anta alaleemu alhakeemu.'

Wasalam

Sources:

1. http://www.geology.wisc.edu/%7Echuck/Class...s/eq_cycle.html

2. http://www.main-vision.com/richard/mountain.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny#List_of_orogenies

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As we come to the close of this debate, I would like to again thank Brother Servidor and the Moderators for the opportunity to engage in this debate.

Huxley's Closing Satement:

As you may recall, I commenced my posts with an explanation of the three questions that needed to be answered during the course of this debate.

The first question was:

1. Does the Qur’an actually say the things Servidor claims it says?

The Qur’an says that the earth itself is fixed. (Al-Qur’an 027.061)

The Qur’an says that mountains are fixed. (Al-Qur’an 013.003, 015.019, 041.010, 050.007, 077.027, 079.032, 088.019)

The Qur’an says that this will be true until the final judgment day, at which point the mountains will be scattered, destroyed, uprooted, crumbled to atoms, flow like sand, become like wool, or pass away like clouds. (Al Qur’an 018.047, 019.090, 020.105, 027.088, 052.010, 056.005, 069.014, 070.009, 073.014, 077.010, 078.020, 081.003, 101.005)

And the Qur’an says that mountains prevent the earth from “shaking, swaying or moving.” (Al-Qur’an 021.031, 031.010)

To the objective reader (in any language) these final two ayaat would appear to be a claim that they prevent earthquakes, an interpretation that conforms perfectly to the other 21 ayaat cited above. They together describe an earth that does not move, with mountains that do not move, with mountains (in fact) that actually prevent the earth from moving. If we are to take any of them literally, then we must take all of them literally. And literally they describe an earth that is nothing like Servidor would have us believe.

Servidor has instead labored mightily to deny that these last two ayaat describe earthquakes. Instead, he would have us believe that it is a reference to some other still unidentified motion that is not earthquakes after all. He further has gone to great lengths to contradict all these other ayaat and their description of a motionless earth and mountains. He has no choice, since geology proves that the earth is a dynamic planet constantly in motion, much of it violently so.

But if this claim is true, then we can make no sense of the rest of these ayaat.

He founded his claim on the quibble that if the specific Arabic word for earthquake was not used in these two ayaat, then the word used (tameeda) must mean something else. Yet in his own posts he repeatedly demonstrated that there are many words (in any language) that can be used to mean “earthquake,” including apparently tameeda. Rather than a compelling argument, he has provided little more than a loophole to escape the clear language of the Qur’an.

Having availed himself of that loophole however, he is left with an even larger problem. Without “earthquake” as an option for the meaning of tameeda, he must present some alternative explanation for the word. We will discuss his failure to do so as part of the next question.

But clearly, the Qur’an does not appear to say what Servidor claims it says.

The second question was:

2. Is Servidor’s understanding of geology correct?

This has been a particular challenging question to assess, given the fact that Servidor’s understanding has changed so dramatically during the course of the debate. In his first post, Servidor proposed the following catastrophic model as his core explanation for tameeda.

Now without these newly formed mountains, all the lithosphereic plates would have more room to gain speed and they would collide with their full force, continually this because there is no bondary in between them. Life would become baseically impossible, because every continent would collide until the destruction of every single continent on earth.

However, by the time we reached his second affirmative rebuttal, Servidor had abandoned this model completely. In fact, he was so anxious to pretend he had never offered it that he tried to label it a “red herring.”

Instead, he replaced it with a model he invented on the fly which (in his own words) goes like this:

A. Most Mountains are formed via folding from colissions, they weld or suture the plates that were about collide together.

B. After this first act of stabilization, the Mountain faults continue to absorb the convergence of the plates.

C. The mountains in both of these actions prevent or slow any future colissions.

D. And whenever these colissions do happen to take place, we now know of course a mountain will arise from it and stabilize the plates and repeat the process that I have thus far described all over again.

Let’s look at these points one at a time.

A. Most Mountains are formed via folding from colissions, they weld or suture the plates that were about collide together.”

There are two clauses here that deserve our attention. The first is that “Mountains are formed via folding from collisions.” This is completely non-controversial and true. The second clause is, however, another issue.

The claim that “they weld or suture the plates that were about collide together,” is simply not true. At the most obvious level, he is claiming that they accomplished this “welding” before they even existed in first. If they are caused by collisions, how can they be responsible for something that happened before they collided (i.e. when they were “about to collide)?

But more importantly, in the sixteen “scientific” sources provided by Servidor during the course of this debate, not a single one says anything resembling this. In fact, there is not a single convergent boundary on the planet earth where this has taken or is taking place. Servidor could not show us one. None of his sources could show us one. And every relevant source by both debaters indicated that (rather than “weld or suture the plates”) the plates continued colliding, one plate simply sliding under the other. This was true at continent-continent, continent-ocean, and ocean-ocean boundaries alike.

Therefore, this “first act of stabilization” is entirely a figment of Servidor’s imagination.

B. After this first act of stabilization, the Mountain faults continue to absorb the convergence of the plates.”

In this point, there is only one clause that deserves our attention, and it is that “the Mountain faults continue to absorb the convergence of the plates.” As we all should recall, this claim is based entirely on the source that Servidor was shown to have grossly misrepresented. (1)

Faults may define major discontinuities in Earth's lithosphere (the outer 100 kilometers of the crust that define the plates in plate tectonics) and thus absorb a significant portion of the convergence between India and Asia. Or they may be shallow features that play a secondary role in a more fluid lithosphere.

In other words, these specific faults (she was referring only to only three: The Kunlun, Altyn Tagh, and Haiyuan faults) might “absorb a significant portion of the convergence,” but then again, they might not!

But further, how would they (in Katie Walter’s opinion) go about “absorbing this convergence?” Why, with “earthquakes” of course.

The Kunlun, Altyn Tagh, and Haiyuan faults are strike-slip faults that allow blocks of Earth's crust to slide past one another, often with disastrous consequences. All of these faults have experienced large earthquakes ranging in intensity from 7.5 to 8.7.

How is it that Servidor imagines this helps his argument regarding either “stability” in general, or tameeda in particular? This second of his two points is essentially an admission that there is nothing stable about collision zones at all, and to the extent that “Mountain faults” contribute to the situation, they do so by allowing (not preventing) massive earthquakes with “disastrous consequences.”

C. The mountains in both of these actions prevent or slow any future colissions.”

Obviously, this point is little more than the redundant repetition of the previous two points, with the sole addition of a prediction regarding “future collisions.” The reader is referred again to the three diagrams provided in my second negative rebuttal. (2) In all such collisions, nothing is either slowed or prevented. The plates continue to converge (i.e. the collisions continue) as if the mountains were not even there. And if those collisions that are currently taking place do not behave as Servidor claims they do, what can we even say about “future collisions?”

Nothing of value, to be sure.

”D. And whenever these colissions do happen to take place, we now know of course a mountain will arise from it and stabilize the plates and repeat the process that I have thus far described all over again.”

The only clause here that deserves our attention is the comment that any mountain that arose would “stabilize the plates.” And as we have seen, such “stability” is merely a figment of Servidor’s imagination. The words “stability” and “stable” are not found a single time in any of Servidor’s sources.

He tried to justify it first by making a claim that is not true, i.e. that mountains “weld or suture” plates together when they do not. He tried to justify it next by pretending that if faults “absorbed the convergence” of the plates, it would be a “stabilizing process” when in fact it is exactly the opposite.

So we are left again to ask a question that Servidor has never actually been able to answer. What does “stability” even mean? The words has never been defined in the first place, and so along with tameeda it remains a huge ambiguity in Servidor’s argument.

If Servidor wants us to believe that tameeda does not mean “earthquake,” then he need to tell us what it actually does mean! His attempt to set up a smokescreen around the undefined concept of “stability” does not help him without a definition of the “instability” (i.e. tameeda) it is supposed to prevent.

What would his imaginary “welding and suturing” prevent other than earthquakes? How does “absorbing the convergence” take place without actually causing earthquakes? What would the avoidance of “future collisions” prevent other than earthquakes?

This is the final and complete failure of Servidor’s position in a nutshell. He makes almost no claims that are true. The claims he makes that are true actually contradict his position regarding “stability.” And none of his claims support his interpretation of the Qur’an, since he was never able to come up with an alternative for tameeda other than “earthquakes.”

This brings us to the final question:

3. Is the Qur’an actually correct?

Given Servidor’s opening premise (that the Qur’an actually has anything meaningful to say about geology at all), there is almost no way to approach this question and not conclude that it is not correct.

If tameeda means “earthquake,” then we simply point out (as I did in my opening statement) that mountains do not prevent earthquakes at all. Even Servidor admits this.

If tameeda means some other sort of “shaking, swaying or moving,” then it would have helped if Servidor could point it out to us. But without his guidance, we are left only with the motion of tectonic plates as an alternative. And we have shown repeatedly how mountains do not stop that either.

In fact, Servidors argument was never designed to demonstrate that mountains actually prevented anything at all, but instead merely “limited” tameeda (whatever that might be). This is itself a questionable interpretation of the clear language of the Qur’an.

So in final measure, no matter what the Qur’an is understood to mean in these two ayaat, they still do not conform to the geological reality. Unless of course, the Qur’an is saying nothing about geology at all.

Conclusion and Summary:

Now gentle reader, understand that it has never been my intention to “prove the Qur’an” contains scientific errors. All apologists know that there is a massive hermeneutic loophole in all religious documents; the appeal to poetry or allegory. My preference has always been to ignore any supposed “scientific statements” in the Qur’an as entirely without any real scientific significance.

It is only the credulous tendency of Muslim apologists such as Servidor to try and find “miraculous scientific information” in the Qur’an as some sort of “proof” of its “divine origin” that even elicits a response. As we have seen, it is fundamentally a futile issue given the ambiguous and “non-scientific” nature of the actual statements themselves.

But worse, why would anyone feel the need to “scientifically prove” the foundational document of Islam in the first place? Does the truth or falsehood of the Qur’an rest on what it says about the “big bang,” or does it rest on what it says about salvation, about good conduct, and about the relationship between man and god?

And the truth or falsity of Islam does not depend on what the Qur’an says about the curative power of honey. It depends on whether Islam itself can pass the much tougher tests of reason and evidence.

Hux

Sources:

1) http://www.llnl.gov/str/Ryerson.html

2) http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/understanding.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...