Dawkins Vs The Quran
Jihadist
Kleuskes & Moos
> Quran 1 - Dawkins 0
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkhbWW8BVjg
there's no barrier between them. Under the right circumstances
you have very little mixing and one will float on top of the other.
The two, however, do mix eventually, otherwise the sea would have
a freshwater layer on top. But hey... What do you expect from a desert
religion?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________
< Did I do an INCORRECT THING?? >
-------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karel
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:29:52 +0500, Jihadist wrote:
> > Quran 1 - Dawkins 0
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkhbWW8BVjg
>
> Well... Not quite. Salt and fresh water will mix and
> there's no barrier between them. Under the right circumstances
> you have very little mixing and one will float on top of the other.
>
> The two, however, do mix eventually, otherwise the sea would have
> a freshwater layer on top. But hey... What do you expect from a desert
> religion?
and it is quite probable that nothing more was meant
than: there is fresh water (my interpretation: rivers
and lakes) and salt water (my interpretation: some
lakes, the seas) and they don't mix. That works in
only one direction and even that does not require the
barrier mentioned, unless you allow for gravity as a
barrier.
Regards,
Karel
A.Carlson
wrote:
There are multiple problems with this grossly distorted and over
simplistic approach to the *actual* issue being addressed by Richard
Dawkins.
The original, and obviously bogus, point that Dawkins was addressing
was represented in this exchange with students of Islam (all emphasis
is mine):
Islamist 1: "...and how, uhm, *in the sea*, the *two waters*,
they don't mix. But they pass through each
other"
Dawkins: "Salty water and fresh water don't mix *in the sea*?"
Islamist 1: "No, it's like, uhm..."
Islamist 2: ".. a *natural barrier*"
ISSUE 1 - salt water and fresh water are not two completely distinct
compounds.
Water in nature is not found to be comprised of just hydrogen and
oxygen atoms. Any number of dissolved solids can be found in what is
commonly referred to as fresh water, including even salt.
Mix in enough salt and you have what is generally referred to as salt
water. IOW, the difference between fresh water, brackish water, and
salt water is the amount of dissolved salts that is mixed in.
In nature, where fresh water meets salt water, the mixing of the two
*almost* always occurs. Only when you have certain unique and calm
conditions do you *sometimes* have a clear separation. More often
than not you have differing concentrations of salt while the mixing
occurs.
In short, water in nature is found with a range of concentrations of
salt. How we refer to any specific sample of water or where we decide
to place an arbitrary line between salt water, fresh water, or
brackish water has no bearing on this issue. There is no distinct
barrier regarding salinity - only arbitrary designations.
Issue 2 - Since the underlying issue being addressed is the *absolute*
that salt water and fresh water don't mix, not always specifically
stressing "in the sea" or some sort of "natural barrier" was not an
important omission coming from Dawkins' perspective especially since
they indeed do readily mix "in the sea" (where else would they
commonly meet anyway?)
This video is completely disingenuous on this issue. Dawkins is
absolutely right that if you put fresh water and saltwater together in
a container *and mix them* that they will not remain separate due to
some sort of UNPROVEN barrier.
The video simply doubles down on the lie of the existence of such a
barrier by simply quoting the Koran, which specifically mentions a
*complete* barrier, and then showing a video of a halocline, where
salt water and fresh water remain (somewhat) separate *under extremely
calm conditions* in a water-filled underground cavern.
The existence of haloclines is not in dispute. They are well
understood. This video, however, is grossly misrepresenting what a
halocline is. Under normal conditions mixing does occur due to
various causes and a halocline will reflect a range of salinity over
various depths.
By no means should someone misrepresent a halocline as some sort of
"natural barrier", as the Islamist students referred to or a "complete
barrier", as the Koran itself refers to. This is a classic example of
a fundamentalist misrepresenting science as though it actually
represents their ill-informed point of view.
Looking for confirmation without actually understanding the underlying
concepts actually being presented is a far too common practice among
creationists and is certainly reflected in this video. Because of
this, it is particularly galling that the video actually accuses
Dawkins of being the one who "heard only what he wanted to hear" when
clearly it was the creator of the video doing this very thing.
Regarding specifically what the students stated to Dawkins:
Islamist 1: "...and how, uhm, *in the sea*, the *two waters*,
they don't mix. But they pass through each
other"
False! There are not "two waters" but water with differing degrees of
salinity - AND THEY DO MIX! They do not simply "pass through each
other"
Dawkins: "Salty water and fresh water don't mix *in the sea*?"
Islamist 1: "No, it's like, uhm..."
Islamist 2: ".. a *natural barrier*"
False! A Halocline IS NOT a natural barrier. It is, in fact, the
range in which the mixing that the Islamist insists does not occur is
actually occurring.
The Islamists were wrong, Dawkins was right, ON EVERY KEY POINT!
Jihadist
they do mix they do not simply pass through each other!)
The fact is that
1. They are places in the sea where fresh water meets salt water and
remain separate. Indicating a barrier.
2. It is totally irrelevant to argue that they are not two waters, or
whether they mix at some other place or even if a tiny amount crosses
the barrier or whether the barrier is natural or not etc
3. This is a scientific fact and is mentioned in the Qur'an.
4. Dawkins had absolutely no clue of this, otherwise he would not have
suggested his stupid test on the later show which had nothing to do with
what the girls told him about what the Qur'an said of the subject.
5. Ancient scripture is right. Modern day science worshiping professor
who makes a career out of mocking religion for its ignorance is wrong.
Irony of ironies!!
A.Carlson
wrote:
>On 08/10/2011 2:23 AM, A.Carlson wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 20:29:52 +0500, Jihadist<Jiha...@earth.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Quran 1 - Dawkins 0
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkhbWW8BVjg
>>
<clip>
>>
>> The Islamists were wrong, Dawkins was right, ON EVERY KEY POINT!
>
>So much irrelevance arguing over semantics (they are not two waters!,
>they do mix they do not simply pass through each other!)
Then we are in complete agreement that the original claim in the
video, that the statement from the Islamists:
"...and how, uhm, *in the sea*, the *two waters*, they
don't mix. But they pass through each other"
is completely wrong! Then why are you posting and then defending the
video and the claims being made on it?
NOTE: This is an absolutist position that you are defending here.
"they don't mix" means just that - "a complete partition" (from the
Koran) means just that. Both the Koran and the Islamists treat fresh
water and salt water as two distinct compounds that *remain* distinct.
>The fact is that
>
>1. They are places in the sea where fresh water meets salt water and
>remain separate. Indicating a barrier.
MAKE UP YOUR FREAKING MIND!!!!! Fresh water (one distinct type of
water) meets salt water (second distinct type of water) and remain
separate (IOW two distinct compounds that remain distinct) is directly
contradictory to your initial claim above, both on the issue of two
waters and mixing. Either it mixes or it doesn't - Either the two
types of water remain distinct or they don't You can't have it both
ways!
And what is your source for this claim as a rule? (BTW, citing the
Koran would produce nothing more than a circular argument) What is
your definition here of "remain separate"? It sounds like you are
trying to grasp for a major fudge factor that just isn't there.
There are indeed places in the oceans and estuaries where fresh water
and salt water meets up but they far more often than not DON'T remain
separate. If they do remain separate, as you insist on claiming
(minus your contrary initial statement above and your moving the
goalpost below), then what is the presumably separate source of
brackish water?
Read up on the flow of fresh water from the Amazon into the Atlantic
Ocean for a far more accurate account than what is reflected in the
Koran on what really goes on in nature.
The Amazon outflow represents 20% of the world's fresh water flowing
into the world's oceans. Yes, you can find drinkable water even with
no land in site. But when the details are more closely looked at,
even this most extreme outflow of fresh water in the world does not
support your absolutist position (OK, the position in the video and
the Koran - your position is hopelessly shifting).
What is found out to sea, near the mouth of the Amazon is a *dilution*
of salinity, not the absence of it. The further out you go, the more
salinity.
It is true that salt water is denser than fresh water so fresh water
has a *tendency* to override the salt water but this does not reflect
some sort of absolute barrier. Mixing does still occur. If it didn't
you would expect a distinct layer of freshwater over saltwater in the
world's oceans instead of a relatively quick increase in salinity as
you get further away from the mouth of a river that flows into the
ocean. There is no barrier at work here, at least not one that can
honestly be described as a "complete partition".
>2. It is totally irrelevant to argue that they are not two waters,
Except that the original video, and the Koran that you are defending,
both do make and/or reflect such a claim, a claim that in fact runs
contrary to what is actually observed in nature.
>or whether they mix at some other place or even if a tiny amount crosses
>the barrier or whether the barrier is natural or not etc
A TINY AMOUNT? Except for perhaps an underground cavern with uniquely
calm conditions we're talking about far more than that a tiny amount
of mixing. Do you even know the definition of the word barrier? What
is your definition of a "complete barrier"?
The claim that you are defending was that there is salt water and
there is fresh water and the two just don't mix due to some
unspecified barrier. In this particular post you are simultaneously
arguing both points, presumably because if you settle on one point or
the other you lose your overall argument that the Koran reflects the
actual current scientific view.
In short, you appear to be attempting to move the goalposts in light
of the fact that they do indeed mix in such a way that you can
continue to claim that they don't! Or at least to a degree that you
can attempt to salvage an underlying claim about the Koran.
And how is discussing whether or not they mix irrelevant to whether or
not there is a barrier. Remember, you are defending a book which
specifically claims the existence of a "complete barrier" between the
two
>3. This is a scientific fact and is mentioned in the Qur'an.
Nope! No such barrier - certainly not the "complete barrier" that the
Koran mistakenly points out.
>4. Dawkins had absolutely no clue of this, otherwise he would not have
>suggested his stupid test on the later show which had nothing to do with
>what the girls told him about what the Qur'an said of the subject.
What is so stupid about doing a direct experiment to test whether or
not salt water and fresh water mix or remain separate? Wouldn't you
want your hypothesis of an invisible (complete) barrier to be properly
vetted and proved? Or, in anticipation of the failure to support such
a hypothesis, would you instead claim that there are specific forces
in nature that just can't be tested?
>5. Ancient scripture is right. Modern day science worshiping professor
>who makes a career out of mocking religion for its ignorance is wrong.
>Irony of ironies!!
Me thinks it isn't the good professor who is being proven ignorant
here.
Jihadist
Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say it is an absolute barrier and no
amount of water can pass through. That is your interpretation you want
to force so you can find fault. There is something that prevents the two
waters of different salinity to mix freely like would happen if two
glasses of waters were mixed.
Here are definitions from Wikipedia
Halocline
-------------
In oceanography, a halocline is cline caused by a strong, vertical
salinity gradient within a body of water. Because salinity (in concert
with temperature) affects the density of seawater, it can play a role in
its vertical stratification
Stratification
--------------------
Water stratification occurs when water masses with different properties
- salinity (halocline), oxygenation (chemocline), density (pycnocline),
temperature (thermocline) - form layers that act as barriers to water
mixing.
Did you read it? 'form layers that act as BARRIERS to water mixing'
What else is the Qur'an saying?
stop playing word games and admit the obvious. Dawkins had no idea of
this otherwise he wouldn't be foolish enough to propose a test of mixing
two glasses of water.
The author of Qur'an knew of this. Dawkins didn't. Why is it so
difficult to accept this?
"You have been given very little knowledge" Qur'an 17:85
Karel
> On 08/10/2011 10:08 AM, A.Carlson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 08/10/2011 2:23 AM, A.Carlson wrote:
First I want to commend you for returning to argue. Most
muslim propagandists on talk.origins are hit and run
posters.
But an obvious point that is made for comparable claims
about the bible is that nobody apparently understood this
verse (25:53 or 25:54, depending) before the discovery of
haloclines. In the case of the bible it is usually deemed
to be more fruitful to understand the text in a way that
would be meaningful for the early readers and I suggest we
do the same for the Quran. The two bodies of water can
fruitfully be interpreted as the fresh water (on land) and
the salt water as the seawater, and they do not mix insofar
as the sea won't become less salty nor the rivers more
salty. The "barrier" could just be a figure of speech.
But please leave the haloclines out of it. You would then
have to explain how the Quran knew about a rather peculiar
condition and was ignorant about the general case: that
rivers flowing into the sea mix with the seawater.
Regards,
Karel
Jihadist
> First I want to commend you for returning to argue. Most
> muslim propagandists on talk.origins are hit and run
> posters.
>
> But an obvious point that is made for comparable claims
> about the bible is that nobody apparently understood this
> verse (25:53 or 25:54, depending) before the discovery of
> haloclines. In the case of the bible it is usually deemed
> to be more fruitful to understand the text in a way that
> would be meaningful for the early readers and I suggest we
> do the same for the Quran. The two bodies of water can
> fruitfully be interpreted as the fresh water (on land) and
> the salt water as the seawater, and they do not mix insofar
> as the sea won't become less salty nor the rivers more
> salty. The "barrier" could just be a figure of speech.
>
> But please leave the haloclines out of it. You would then
> have to explain how the Quran knew about a rather peculiar
> condition and was ignorant about the general case: that
> rivers flowing into the sea mix with the seawater.
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
>
Your interpretation is very bad particularly when what actually happens
in some places can explain this perfectly. The verse states that 'He let
loose two bodies of water (or seas) .. yet he has made a barrier between
them, a partition that is forbidden to be passed. How could the last
sentence just be a figure of speech, also when the first part clearly
indicates they are free to mix?
As for your next question, what makes you think the author of the Qur'an
was ignorant of general case? It just wasn't remarkable enough.
The only explanation a non believer can come up with is that this
phenomenon was known at that time so was mentioned in the Qur'an
although there doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.
But still my point remains that the author of Qur'an knew something that
Mr. Dawkins was ignorant of.
Karel
I get a bit confused by your self-contradictory explanations,
which are therefore hard to accept as explanations at all.
First you have now explained that the Quran shows that the
two bodies of mater are free to mix (an interpretation for
the first part of the verse I do not accept: letting loose
does not imply mixing, unless you want to perpretrate the
horror of special pleading: "but there it does"), then you
explain that this (the general case) is so unremarkable that
the Quran does not mention it. This is a good time to ask
you how this verse was interpreted before the discovery of
haloclines. We must assume: wrongly. But this then means that
we basically do not understand anything in the Quran, as a
discovery tomorrow or centuries later will show that only
under that aspect can any specific part of the Quran be
understood. Yes, even the "halocline interpretation" of
Qur 25:53 could get superseded by a new discovery.
Really, my insistance that the Quran (or the bible) be
interpreted in a way that is meaningful for all readers
through time just tries to avoid such absurdities.
You also quote the Quran on an impassable barrier
("forbidden to be passed. The mind boggles, as mixing
occurs along a halocline. In an earlier reply you seemed
to have acknowledged this. You have now the choice to be
consistent one way or the other and either deny that
mixing occurs along a halocline, denying science, or
accept that mixing occurs along a halocline, and therefore
that the Quran is incorrect about an impassable barrier.
Isn't this again a reason to leave haloclines out of this
dicussion, if only to be able to embrace both science and
the Quran?
Regards,
Karel
Kleuskes & Moos
sometimes one coincides with reality and the believers go "See? Our
holy book was right."
If it suits their religious affiliations, it's fine by me, but the dumb
broads were passing it off as science, and that's not acceptable. If those
are the standards they apply to medicine, I'd stay well away from them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________
< One FISHWICH coming up!! >
Vend
> On 08/10/2011 2:23 AM, A.Carlson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wrong. They do mix.
The point is that if you have a steady supply of fresh water, you get
a gradient of salt concentration near the region where it meets salty
water.
Normally they mix turbulently, so there is no clear boundary between
the two, but in exceptionally calm waters, if fresh water enters from
above, the salt concentration gradient may become step, resulting in
an apparent visible boundary surface due to different refraction
indexes.
But that apparent boundary is no barrier: fresh water from above
continually crosses it just to be replaced by new fresh water.
Shut down the fresh water supply and the gradient will eventually
disappear.
> 4. Dawkins had absolutely no clue of this, otherwise he would not have
> suggested his stupid test on the later show which had nothing to do with
> what the girls told him about what the Qur'an said of the subject.
You can reproduce the halocline even in the lab or at home, if you
manage to put toghether salty water and fresh water without causing
much turbolence. But the point stands: they eventually do mix.
Jihadist
> I get a bit confused by your self-contradictory explanations,
> which are therefore hard to accept as explanations at all.
There is no contradiction. You just want to see things in black and white.
> First you have now explained that the Quran shows that the
> two bodies of mater are free to mix (an interpretation for
> the first part of the verse I do not accept: letting loose
> does not imply mixing, unless you want to perpretrate the
> horror of special pleading: "but there it does"),
If one reads the whole verse it does mean that. The fact that both
bodies of water are free to move yet remain separate is a sign of Allah.
That is the most natural interpretation. YOU have to bring evidence to
prove 'barrier' is just used in figurative sense.
> then you
> explain that this (the general case) is so unremarkable that
> the Quran does not mention it. This is a good time to ask
> you how this verse was interpreted before the discovery of
> haloclines.
Any previous interpretation would only be authoritative if it came from
the Prophet (pbuh) himself but there are none for such verses (usuallY)
that talk about physical world. He left such verses to be pondered on by
people so if the people of the 8th or 9th century explained them
according to their knowledge it is not at all binding on Muslims to
stick to that interpretation.
> We must assume: wrongly. But this then means that
> we basically do not understand anything in the Quran, as a
> discovery tomorrow or centuries later will show that only
> under that aspect can any specific part of the Quran be
> understood.
No. The part of Qur'an necessary for guidance (commandments, rules etc)
has been explained by the Prophet (pbuh) and is known as the Sunnah. But
other verses can reveal new meanings as our knowledge grows. The belief
that Qur'an contains ancient historical knowledge as well as modern is
very old. It is based on the belief that the Qur'an is the word of God
who knows all. You cannot demand that Muslims start from the assumption
that the Qur'an was written by ordinary human beings and thus reject any
interpretation that indicates divine knowledge by its author even if it
is a much better one.
> Yes, even the "halocline interpretation" of
> Qur 25:53 could get superseded by a new discovery.
Yes. if the new meaning fits the words of the Qur'an better. Isn't that
how Science works! Any new theory that explains the facts/signs in a
better way is accepted. This holds true for the ayahs (signs/verses) of
the Qur'an as well.
> Really, my insistance that the Quran (or the bible) be
> interpreted in a way that is meaningful for all readers
> through time just tries to avoid such absurdities.
But why do you want to limit it to one meaning? It is an established
belief among Muslim scholars that verses of Qur'an have multiple
meanings. That there are layers of meanings, some subtle and others not
so subtle.
So, the earlier Muslims could interpret it as you have suggested and now
with the discovery of haloclines a much clearer and better
interpretation can be arrived at.
> You also quote the Quran on an impassable barrier
> ("forbidden to be passed. The mind boggles, as mixing
> occurs along a halocline. In an earlier reply you seemed
> to have acknowledged this. You have now the choice to be
> consistent one way or the other and either deny that
> mixing occurs along a halocline, denying science, or
> accept that mixing occurs along a halocline, and therefore
> that the Quran is incorrect about an impassable barrier.
>
> Isn't this again a reason to leave haloclines out of this
> dicussion, if only to be able to embrace both science and
> the Quran?
But there is not much of a mixing even if it happens, otherwise no one
would have called it a barrier. The video also clearly showed that the
man was entering one type of water to another (which appeared to be air)
So the bulk of water was prevented to pass (forbidden to pass). Just
like in a balloon, air trapped inside is forbidden to pass through,
though strictly speaking, hundreds of thousands of molecules would still
be crossing!
>
> Regards,
>
> Karel
>
A.Carlson
wrote:
>
>Nowhere in the Qur'an does it say it is an absolute barrier and no
>amount of water can pass through.
Now who is arguing semantics. The video that you are defending here
quotes the Koran as stating:
"... and He has set a barrier and a complete partition
between them"
In the same video that you are defending, it was the Islamists who
stated:
"...and how, uhm, *in the sea*, the *two waters*, they
don't mix. But they pass through each other"
So, when I used the verbiage "absolute barrier" I was describing what
the Koran called a "complete partition" that, it is being alleged
here, prevents any mixing of fresh and salt water.
How is that not an absolute barrier? What part of "they don't mix"
(from the Islamists you are defending here) don't you understand?
Again, it is you who seems to be equivocating here in order to try
and have it both ways. As far as passing through, my argument here
only concerns the bogus claim that they don't mix as they do so.
That said, it is the Koran, that you are defending here, which claims
that there is a "complete partition between them" so that is an
apparent contradiction that you may have to explain, not me.
I readily admit that different bodies of waters do "pass through" each
other, but they do mix together, to one degree or another, as they do
so - depending upon various conditions at hand.
>That is your interpretation you want
>to force so you can find fault. There is something that prevents the two
>waters of different salinity to mix freely like would happen if two
>glasses of waters were mixed.
BUT MIXING IS PRECISELY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN NATURE!!!!
And, again, with what appears to be equivocating. First you defend an
absolute position of no mixing (watch the video - read the Koran!!!),
then you try and shift the definition to include "mix freely".
IT MIXES. Get over it!!! The mere act of a body of fresh water
*flowing into* a body of salt water clearly contributes to such
mixing. How else do we get brackish water? (a question repeatedly
posed, which you continue to dodge)
BTW, there is a difference between the two phrases "prevents the two
from mixing" and "prevents the two from mixing *freely*" These are
two distinct concepts - PICK ONE AND STICK TO IT!!!!
(If you pick the second one it will give you far more weasel room even
if it does contradict the Koran's claim of a "complete partition" and
the Islamists claim of no mixing)
> Here are definitions from Wikipedia
>
>Halocline
>-------------
>In oceanography, a halocline is cline caused by a strong, vertical
>salinity gradient within a body of water. Because salinity (in concert
>with temperature) affects the density of seawater, it can play a role in
>its vertical stratification
Yes, and note the not the least bit trivial term "salinity gradient"
with respect to the issues actually being discussed here.
There is a world of a difference between a salinity gradient and some
sort of absolute barrier, excuse me, I mean "complete partition".
And this is all in support of the observed fact that, with few unique
exceptions, salinity varies at different ocean depths and that is a
completely different concept than the claim that you are defending
here (when you are not equivocating) that they don't mix, that fresh
water somehow magically remains separate and fresh. (It doesn't -
they mix - exactly how readily may be open to discussion, but they
still mix)
>Stratification
>--------------------
>Water stratification occurs when water masses with different properties
>- salinity (halocline), oxygenation (chemocline), density (pycnocline),
>temperature (thermocline) - form layers that act as barriers to water
>mixing.
Act as "barriers" to a degree, yes, but not to a degree that would
support the Koran's claim of a "complete partition" or the claim made
by the Islamists in the video that "the two waters, they don't mix".
And also note that the Islamists that you are defending here also
claimed:
"the *two waters*, they don't mix. But they pass
through each other"
So how does this work in conjunction with stratification? Do the
waters really "pass through each other" *without mixing* or is this
just one more layer of bullshit piled on top of bullshit?
We're not talking about oil and water here. We do not find separate
and distinct pools of each in nature nor should we expect to (except,
I suppose, those who are simply told as much by the Koran). What we
do find is different gradients (as even you noted above) of salinity,
where there is clearly NO BARRIER and MIXING DOES OCCUR.
>Did you read it? 'form layers that act as BARRIERS to water mixing'
Read on and it also states:
"Stratification may be upset by turbulence. This creates
mixed layers of water."
Remember, we are talking about fresh water being introduced to salt
water, where the fresh water has a *tendency* to override the salt
water (with increasing salinity as we get further out - as the two
M-I-X). Furthermore, there is typically plenty of turbulence at the
surface, particularly with wave action, that no doubt contributes to
the mixing.
But more to the point, in nature it is both readily and repeatedly
observed that THEY DO MIX!!!!!
>What else is the Qur'an saying?
Who the hell cares? We should be talking about what nature is showing
us - what the actual empirical evidence is saying as opposed to
getting stuck up on some 7th century holy book.
>stop playing word games and admit the obvious. Dawkins had no idea of
>this otherwise he wouldn't be foolish enough to propose a test of mixing
>two glasses of water.
His proposed experiment was both simple and directly to the point. It
would have clearly shown that salt water and fresh water *can* indeed
mix and that there is no hidden barrier that *prevents* the two from
mixing, either completely or with a variety of differing salinities.
If one chose to carefully add fresh water to a container already
containing salt water one could also demonstrate that stratification
*can* occur, at least under the most pristine condition. And then any
number of methods can be used to demonstrate that they CAN MIX as
well, just as THEY DO in nature.
>The author of Qur'an knew of this. Dawkins didn't. Why is it so
>difficult to accept this?
Knew what exactly? That salt water and fresh water don't mix? That
there is some sort of "complete partitions" that prevents this from
happening?
Both the experiment that Dawkins proposed and what we readily and
repeatedly observe in nature clearly show us that THEY INDEED DO MIX
and that THERE IS NO SUCH BARRIER as you continue to propose, complete
with your repeated weasely equivocations made necessary due to the
FACT that your holy book directly contradicts what is ACTUALLY
OBSERVED in nature.
Dawkins was right - salt water and fresh water do mix - no absolute
barrier here - The Koran is wrong on this point - get over it.
>"You have been given very little knowledge" Qur'an 17:85
FUCK YOU TOO!
Typical arrogant religious fundie. My holy book tells me that I am
smarter than you so I am under no obligation to pull my head out of my
ass and actually see the world as it is and - God Forbid - become
better informed because my holy book is telling me that I already know
everything that I need to.
Are you even vaguely aware of what a circular argument is?
Kleuskes & Moos
> On 8 Ott, 04:46, Jihadist <Jihad...@earth.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> 4. Dawkins had absolutely no clue of this, otherwise he would not have
>> suggested his stupid test on the later show which had nothing to do
>> with what the girls told him about what the Qur'an said of the subject.
>
> You can reproduce the halocline even in the lab or at home, if you
> manage to put toghether salty water and fresh water without causing much
> turbolence. But the point stands: they eventually do mix.
The easiest way to demonstrate the effectt is by adding sugar to a glass of hot
water and then let a teabag float on top. You will sea a clear region at the
bottom, containing a sugar solution and the tea on top of that.
It takes 10 minutes and provides a cup of tea _and_ some insight.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ I am a traffic light, and Alan Ginzberg \
\ kidnapped my laundry in 1927! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
A.Carlson
wrote:
<Clip>
>> Isn't this again a reason to leave haloclines out of this
>> dicussion, if only to be able to embrace both science and
>> the Quran?
>
>But there is not much of a mixing even if it happens, otherwise no one
>would have called it a barrier.
Koran, or the Islamists in the original video portray it.
>The video also clearly showed that the
>man was entering one type of water to another (which appeared to be air)
>So the bulk of water was prevented to pass (forbidden to pass).
First and foremost, the video shows a highly selective circumstance
where, in an underground cavern, you have little if any turbulence.
Nothing is being "forbidden" here! Mixing is just not readily
occurring under these specific and unique circumstances.
This is also NOT reflective of what is readily seen in nature,
particularly at the surface where fresh water tends to override while
mixing with a heavier, saltier layer. The further you go away from
the fresh water source, the saltier it gets. IOW the fresh water is
MIXING with the salt water. Again, nothing is being "forbidden" here!
The facts show quite the contrary.
The same holds true with haloclines. They generally DO NOT show two
distinct bodies of water (as seen in your highly selective video) but
a salinity gradient which, despite your attempts at equivocating, DOES
NOT support your false contention that there exists some sort of
impermeable barrier (or would you prefer "absolute barrier" or
"complete partition") Again, nothing is being "forbidden" here. The
facts show quite the contrary.
If you were to get a lot of wave action or strong currents in that
cave you may very well see a much higher degree of mixing past this
non-existent barrier of yours that you continue to insist "forbids"
exactly what we actually see repeatedly throughout nature. It just
isn't happening, to any great degree at least, under these very
specific conditions. IOW, the video is clearly showing an exception
to the norm. You should not draw or support rules from such a
selective example.
If the waters truly were "forbidden" (which differs from "absolute
barrier" exactly how?) to mix, how do you explain the existence of
brackish water? How do you explain the gradual disappearance of fresh
water on the surface of the ocean the farther away from the mouth of
the river you get? How do you explain a gradient of salinity as
opposed to a precipitous drop in salinity with haloclines?
>Just
>like in a balloon, air trapped inside is forbidden to pass through,
>though strictly speaking, hundreds of thousands of molecules would still
>be crossing!
can't get away with trying to have it both ways.
This isn't just a question of passing but also of mixing. BTW your
analogy is a pretty piss-poor one. It may be analogous under very
limited circumstances, like your underwater cave, but it in no way
reflects what is readily seen throughout nature when fresh water and
salt water so often meet and mix.
Karel
Very well. If you want to insist that impassable means
passable and that passable means impassable and that
therefore the Quran is right, you are welcome.
I summarize my position:
Qur 25:53 describes a general situation. This is clearest
when one starts reading in 48. The sweet water is the water
that falls from heaven (and fills lakes and rivers). The
text (53 and surrounding verses) gives no indication that
it addresses an exceptional condition. That is just your
addition to the text. Add what you want, but do not expect
me to accept it.
Even when we accept that this verse refers to an exception
(I don't), the text only conforms to science when we
change absolute words to relative words. Feel free to change
them, but do not hope to convince me that way. Am I really
to understand that the Quran cannot speak about a scientific
observation with exactness?
Regards,
Karel
Mike Lyle
the Maulana Muhammad Ali (President of Ahmadiyya
Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore), whose notes seem to be sensible and
undogmatic. On 25:53, his note reads "The reference appears to be to
rain-water and sea-water respectively. The barrier is the law which
prevents salt from rising up along with water." That is, the
hydrological cycle doesn't produce salty rain: this makes perfect
sense to me.
Our "Jihadist" may be able to refer to the same translator's much
larger (three volumes) annoted translation into Urdu).
--
Mike.
Nathan Levesque
> Quran 1 - Dawkins 0
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkhbWW8BVjg
A.Carlson
It is sometimes hard to decide what is worse, bogus prophesies or bad
apologetics.
In this case, the first video defends a falsehood by defending the
voracity of the claim while the second video defends the original
source, the Koran, by distorting the original claim so that it can be
made to appear as though the source remains consistent with reality.
One attempts to change our view of reality to match the Koran while
the other attempts to bend the Koran to reality. Neither ends up
being an honest endeavor.
It's fun to sometimes watch the gymnastics though.
Karel
Thank you. That confirms the line my thoughts were taking
and is a much less forced interpretation than the haloclines.
Regards,
Karel
Jihadist
> A translation I have dates from 1928, and is by the Indian scholar,
> the Maulana Muhammad Ali (President of Ahmadiyya
> Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore), whose notes seem to be sensible and
> undogmatic. On 25:53, his note reads "The reference appears to be to
> rain-water and sea-water respectively. The barrier is the law which
> prevents salt from rising up along with water." That is, the
> hydrological cycle doesn't produce salty rain: this makes perfect
> sense to me.
>
> Our "Jihadist" may be able to refer to the same translator's much
> larger (three volumes) annoted translation into Urdu).
when it is obvious that he is struggling to find a suitable meaning (
The reference appears to be..blah blah)?
Below is the English translation from Maulana Maududi's 6 volume
Tafheem-ul-Quran which is originally in Urdu and I have it.
(25:53) And it is He, Who has let loose the two seas, one palatable and
sweet, the other bitter and saltish, and there is a partition between
them, which is an insurmountable barrier. *68
*68 This phenomenon has been perceived in many places in the sea and on
the land that sweet water and bitter water has existed side by side.
Turkish Admiral Syedi Ali Ra'is, in his book Mir 'at-al-Mamalik, written
in the 16th century, has mentioned a place in the Persian Gulf, where
springs of sweet waver exist under the bitter waters of the sea, where
he could get drinking water for his fleet. The American Oil Company at
first obtained water from the same springs in the Persian Gulf, before
they dug up wells near Dhahran for supply of drinking water. Near
Bahrain also there exist springs of sweet water at the sea bed from
which people have been taking water until quite recently. Besides this
apparent meaning which gives a rational proof of Allah's being the One
and the only Lord of the universe, the verse contains a subtle
suggestion as well: When Allah wills, He can raise up a righteous
community from among a large wicked society just as He can cause springs
of palatable and sweet water to gush out from under the salty waters of
the sea.
Kleuskes & Moos
> On 10/10/2011 1:30 AM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> A translation I have dates from 1928, and is by the Indian scholar, the
>> Maulana Muhammad Ali (President of Ahmadiyya Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam,
>> Lahore), whose notes seem to be sensible and undogmatic. On 25:53, his
>> note reads "The reference appears to be to rain-water and sea-water
>> respectively. The barrier is the law which prevents salt from rising up
>> along with water." That is, the hydrological cycle doesn't produce
>> salty rain: this makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>> Our "Jihadist" may be able to refer to the same translator's much
>> larger (three volumes) annoted translation into Urdu).
>
> Why do you insist the obviously bad interpretation is the correct one
> when it is obvious that he is struggling to find a suitable meaning (
> The reference appears to be..blah blah)?
>
> Below is the English translation from Maulana Maududi's 6 volume
> Tafheem-ul-Quran which is originally in Urdu and I have it.
Qor'an/Hadith that prohibits translations?
> (25:53) And it is He, Who has let loose the two seas, one palatable and
> sweet, the other bitter and saltish, and there is a partition between
> them, which is an insurmountable barrier. *68
>
> *68 This phenomenon has been perceived in many places in the sea and on
> the land that sweet water and bitter water has existed side by side.
> Turkish Admiral Syedi Ali Ra'is, in his book Mir 'at-al-Mamalik, written
> in the 16th century, has mentioned a place in the Persian Gulf, where
> springs of sweet waver exist under the bitter waters of the sea, where
> he could get drinking water for his fleet. The American Oil Company at
> first obtained water from the same springs in the Persian Gulf, before
> they dug up wells near Dhahran for supply of drinking water. Near
> Bahrain also there exist springs of sweet water at the sea bed from
> which people have been taking water until quite recently. Besides this
> apparent meaning which gives a rational proof of Allah's being the One
> and the only Lord of the universe, the verse contains a subtle
> suggestion as well: When Allah wills, He can raise up a righteous
> community from among a large wicked society just as He can cause springs
> of palatable and sweet water to gush out from under the salty waters of
> the sea.
insurmountable barrier between the two. In fact they _will_ mix.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________
< Are we on STRIKE yet? >
-----------------------
\
\
Ernest Major
<Jiha...@earth.com> writes
that references to haloclines. The existence of freshwater springs in
the sea bed does not support the claim of "two seas, one palatable and
sweet, the other bitter and saltish, (with) a partition between them,
absorbed by an aquifer on land, and flows down the aquifer and emerges
on the sea bed. If there was an insurmountable barrier between them then
were did all the fresh water that emerged from the springs over the past
millenia go?
--
alias Ernest Major
Jihadist
Maududi was well aware of the classic works of Tafseer, should lead you
to wonder why you and others are hellbent to not allow any meaning other
then that one (laughably called 'sensible' and 'undogmatic') or similar
to it.
Ernest Major
Assuming the translations are accurate, and that the meaning is not
substantively changed by the lack of context, I don't find the Maulana
Muhammad Ali's interpretation of the text persuasive, but at least he
isn't asking us to ignore reality.
You might note that your response was a non-sequitur. You introduced
documentation of submarine freshwater springs as supporting a claim in
the Quran, even though it does not.
--
alias Ernest Major
Jihadist
> I'm confused. You seem to be insisting that the Quran is wrong.
>
> Assuming the translations are accurate, and that the meaning is not
> substantively changed by the lack of context, I don't find the Maulana
> Muhammad Ali's interpretation of the text persuasive, but at least he
> isn't asking us to ignore reality.
What reality? That there is an insurmountable barrier in the form of
land which doesn't allow the waters to be mixed?
> You might note that your response was a non-sequitur. You introduced
> documentation of submarine freshwater springs as supporting a claim in
> the Quran, even though it does not.
how does it not? Clearly the fresh water remains separate from the salt
water so it is available for drinking. This indicates a barrier in that
area.
Ernest Major
<Jiha...@earth.com> writes
>On 10/10/2011 5:13 PM, Ernest Major wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. You seem to be insisting that the Quran is wrong.
>>
>> Assuming the translations are accurate, and that the meaning is not
>> substantively changed by the lack of context, I don't find the Maulana
>> Muhammad Ali's interpretation of the text persuasive, but at least he
>> isn't asking us to ignore reality.
>
>What reality? That there is an insurmountable barrier in the form of
>land which doesn't allow the waters to be mixed?
I'm confused. What has this to do with your original video, or the
references to haloclines and submarine freshwater springs?
I'm further confused. I thought that you were rejecting the Maulana
Muhammad Ali's interpretation. And the land is not an insurmountable
barrier - freshwater flows along rivers and aquifers to the sea where it
mixes with sea water. And in most areas of interior drainage (Lake Chad
seems to be an exception - much of its inflow drains into aquifers
rather than being lost to evaporation) the rivers end in saline lakes.
>
>
>> You might note that your response was a non-sequitur. You introduced
>> documentation of submarine freshwater springs as supporting a claim in
>> the Quran, even though it does not.
>
>how does it not? Clearly the fresh water remains separate from the salt
>water so it is available for drinking. This indicates a barrier in that
>area.
>
The freshwater doesn't remain separate from the sea water. It rises from
springs, and turbulently mixes with sea water. That it doesn't
completely mix instantaneously does not validate claims of impassible
barriers.
--
alias Ernest Major
Galen Hekhuis
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:13:28 +0500, Jihadist <Jiha...@earth.com>
wrote:
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>area.
Cave divers often run into exactly the mix you say doesn't exist. It's
called the "halocline." While it is often thought of as two distinct
types, it is actually simply a degree of salinity. Freshwater can
readily become saltwater, and likewise saltwater can easily become
freshwater. There is no barrier, they mix all the time.
Jihadist
>> What reality? That there is an insurmountable barrier in the form of
>> land which doesn't allow the waters to be mixed?
>
> I'm confused. What has this to do with your original video, or the
> references to haloclines and submarine freshwater springs?
See below. You explained yourself what I had in mind.
> I'm further confused. I thought that you were rejecting the Maulana
> Muhammad Ali's interpretation.
I *am* rejecting it.
> And the land is not an insurmountable
> barrier - freshwater flows along rivers and aquifers to the sea where it
> mixes with sea water. And in most areas of interior drainage (Lake Chad
> seems to be an exception - much of its inflow drains into aquifers
> rather than being lost to evaporation) the rivers end in saline lakes.
Exactly. So why say this (or any similar) interpretation is correct
because there is an insurmountable/absolute barrier in the form of land
when actually there is none??
Muhammad Ali and other older scholars only settled with this because
they weren't aware of haloclines or fresh water springs.
Ernest Major
<Jiha...@earth.com> writes
>
>>> What reality? That there is an insurmountable barrier in the form of
>>> land which doesn't allow the waters to be mixed?
>>
>> I'm confused. What has this to do with your original video, or the
>> references to haloclines and submarine freshwater springs?
>
>See below. You explained yourself what I had in mind.
>
>> I'm further confused. I thought that you were rejecting the Maulana
>> Muhammad Ali's interpretation.
>
>I *am* rejecting it.
>
>> And the land is not an insurmountable
>> barrier - freshwater flows along rivers and aquifers to the sea where it
>> mixes with sea water. And in most areas of interior drainage (Lake Chad
>> seems to be an exception - much of its inflow drains into aquifers
>> rather than being lost to evaporation) the rivers end in saline lakes.
>
>Exactly. So why say this (or any similar) interpretation is correct
>because there is an insurmountable/absolute barrier in the form of land
>when actually there is none??
interpretation unpersuasive, subject to revision in respect of issues of
translation and context.
>Muhammad Ali and other older scholars only settled with this because
>they weren't aware of haloclines or fresh water springs.
>
In the case of haloclines, fresh and salt water can mix by turbulently
or by diffusion. The latter is a slower process, so in the absence of
turbulence it is possible to have layers of fresh and salt water with an
intervening and broadening layer of intermediate salinity (a halocline).
If there is a continuous inflow of fresh water it is possible to retain
a halocline over a prolonged period of time.
The position with haloclines between different layer of sea water such
as the North Atlantic Deep Water, the Antarctic Bottom Water and the
Mediterranean Intermediate Water is similar.
Submarine freshwater springs are analogous to the River Amazon. The
surface waters of the sea offshore from the mouths of the Amazon is
fresh for may miles offshore. This is not because there is an impassible
barrier between the fresh water of the Amazon (which represents 1/5th of
the world's total river outflow into the ocean) and the salt water of
the Atlantic, but because it takes time to dilute the flow of fresh
water with salt water.
Submarine fresh springs are the same, except that the scale is much
smaller, and the fresh water is delivered by an aquifer rather than a
river.
If the Quran really claims an impassible barrier between fresh and salt
water that claim it is not confirmed by the existence of either
haloclines or submarine freshwater springs. If there was an impassible
barrier, the volume of fresh water around the springs would increase
until evaporation was in balance with inflow (at which point it would
start becoming salty)
--
alias Ernest Major
AGWFacts
wrote:
> Quran 1 - Dawkins 0
The al Koran claims milk comes from stomaches and testicles exist
to weight down the urinary tract. Ooops!
--
TRUTH NEEDS ALLIES!
http://epa.gov/climatechange/
The government that governs least governs best.
Mike Lyle
wrote:
>On 10/10/2011 1:30 AM, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
>> A translation I have dates from 1928, and is by the Indian scholar,
>> the Maulana Muhammad Ali (President of Ahmadiyya
>> Anjuman-i-Ishaat-i-Islam, Lahore), whose notes seem to be sensible and
>> undogmatic. On 25:53, his note reads "The reference appears to be to
>> rain-water and sea-water respectively. The barrier is the law which
>> prevents salt from rising up along with water." That is, the
>> hydrological cycle doesn't produce salty rain: this makes perfect
>> sense to me.
>>
>> Our "Jihadist" may be able to refer to the same translator's much
>> larger (three volumes) annoted translation into Urdu).
>
>Why do you insist the obviously bad interpretation is the correct one
>when it is obvious that he is struggling to find a suitable meaning (
>The reference appears to be..blah blah)?
discussion means hostility. The water-cycle interpretation isn't
"obviously bad": at least it's certainly scientifically possible,
while the other raises more questions than it answers. "The reference
appears to be" is the kind of language used by real experts, who know
that humility is the best frame of mind in which to approach a major
intellectual and spiritual challenge.
I don't know which Arabic word has been translated as "sea" in this
verse; but if it's _bahr_, then it need not mean only "sea". It can
also refer to other bodies of water, salt or fresh, even to rivers.
>Below is the English translation from Maulana Maududi's 6 volume
>Tafheem-ul-Quran which is originally in Urdu and I have it.
>
>
>(25:53) And it is He, Who has let loose the two seas, one palatable and
>sweet, the other bitter and saltish, and there is a partition between
>them, which is an insurmountable barrier. *68
>
>*68 This phenomenon has been perceived in many places in the sea and on
>the land that sweet water and bitter water has existed side by side.
>Turkish Admiral Syedi Ali Ra'is, in his book Mir 'at-al-Mamalik, written
>in the 16th century, has mentioned a place in the Persian Gulf, where
>springs of sweet waver exist under the bitter waters of the sea, where
>he could get drinking water for his fleet.
with the salt.
Consider the proposed physical barrier against mixing salt and fresh
water. Is it also impossible to mix plain water with solutions of
sugar, copper sulphate, or any other substance? How do you explain
this? Or is this property unique to salt? If it _is_ unique to sodium
chloride, how do you explain it?
>The American Oil Company at
>first obtained water from the same springs in the Persian Gulf, before
>they dug up wells near Dhahran for supply of drinking water. Near
>Bahrain also there exist springs of sweet water at the sea bed from
>which people have been taking water until quite recently. Besides this
>apparent meaning which gives a rational proof of Allah's being the One
>and the only Lord of the universe, the verse contains a subtle
>suggestion as well: When Allah wills, He can raise up a righteous
>community from among a large wicked society just as He can cause springs
>of palatable and sweet water to gush out from under the salty waters of
>the sea.
passage. Though the same spiritual message can be dervied from either,
one appears to agree with scientific knowledge, while the other does
not. Your beliefs are your own affair (even when you offer them for
discussion in public), but it is hard to see why you prefer to believe
the latter.
--
Mike.
Schenck
> In message <j6v3er$lo...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jihadist
> <Jihad...@earth.com> writes
Isn't the other problem with J's argument (That the koran has an
accurate description of a natural process that was IMMPOSSIBLE for a
mere mortal at the time to know) that, surely, people who live in the
arabian deserts along the Red Sea and had to dig, often quite deep, to
obtain fresh water, understood ALREADY that fresh water could rest
ontop of salt water, ESPECIALLY in still aquifers? It seems like
something the average Arab of Mo's time would've encountered
frequently, arguably more so than, say, europeans, because often in
the gulf salty marine water is able to infiltrate ground water
deposits (and thus co-occur more frequently than in some other
places)?
So J's arguement seems to be wrong because:
1. The barrier is non existent, it is not a barrier, the waters can
and do mix
2. The halocline is a density dependant feature, and if Mo understood
it he'd be referencing density and bouyancy
3. The arab's must've seen fresh atop salt water quite often (hell
that's probably why its called 'sweet', because its potable water
they've encountered in wells) so its not any kind of special
knowledge.
Mo was most likely making an allegorical reference to a common
observation in order to describe a theological process. And use of
allegories is quite common in the Jewish and Christian religious
tradition, of which Islam was developed in.
Mike Lyle
interesting.
I've seen what seemed to be springs coming up from the sea bed, while
snorkelling in Libya: a little plume of disturbed sand reveals their
position, and they were colder to the touch than the surrounding
water. I wish now that I'd tried a taste test instead of just taking
for granted that the water was fresh. No sign of failure to mix, of
course.
--
Mike.