Electoral Member
Posts: 942 
June 27th, 2008, 12:17 PM
This has nothing to do with "they care" or care not.
Quoting typingrandomstuff
No sunspots now as do they say.
Egad. That will be years later. North Pole could be ice free this summer is due to the magnetic flip and the sun's cycle. Plus people just don't care and it's going to be warm.
This has nothing to do with "they care" or care not.
Electoral Member
Posts: 942
June 27th, 2008, 01:02 PM
The explanation: (He created the heavens and the earth with the true [promise]*; He makes the night spherical on the day, and makes the day spherical on the night; and He subjected the sun and the moon: each running on for an appointed term; surely, He is the All-Mighty, the All-Forgiving!)
[* i.e. with the true promise of destruction and ruining on Doomsday.]
The interpretation:
The word يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical)
Now, dear reader, look carefully to the eloquence and clear language of the Quran. Look carefully and think how the Glorious God has declared the sphericity of the Earth, its rotation around itself, the transferring of sunrays upon it and the formation of the day and night, by His saying -be exalted –
i.e. (He makes the night spherical on the day, and makes the day spherical on the night.)
The Glorious God said يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical) because the earth is spherical in shape, so the sunrays will spread on half of the sphere so that the day will be on its lightened side, while the night will be in the dark side, then the sunrays will transfer to the other side because of the rotation of the Earth, so that the position of the night will become day, and the position of the day will become night. Therefore, the sunrays get a spherical shape around the Earth, and give it light and heat, and the day and night will result from that.
Then again look carefully, dear reader, to this word and think about its meaning. Can any human being be able to give a synonym of it? Or can he express in such [few] words all this information and knowledge?
This word, alone, suffices as a proof of the truthfulness of Mohammed –peace be on him – and a proof of the existence of a Creator for the universe; because the sphericity of the Earth was unknown to people until the present time[ the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago], and this knowledge and statement have not been discovered and become a reality except in these present days."
The explanation: (It is God Who created the heavens and the earth and that which is between them in six [of the] days [of the Hereafter.] Then He mounted the throne …)
‘The heavens and the earth’ means the planets. And "that which is between them" means the moons. And six days means six thousand years, during which the planets were transformed into earths after being one flaming sun, and during this period: the gaseous layers of the atmosphere were created.
http://universeandquran.site.io/#Formation_of_the_Earth
http://universeandquran.site.io/#The_Gaseous_Heavens
eanassir
Quoting L Gilbert
The earth is flat and tomatoes are poisonous and the universe was created in 7 days. lmao
All these words are wrong; but the truth is: the earth is not flat; tomato is not poisonous and the universe was not created in 7 days.
- The earth is not flat: it is spherical according to "the Quran 39: 5
خَلَقَ السّماواتِ و الأرْضَ بِالحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اللّيْلَ عَلى النّهارِ و يُكَوِّرُ النَّهارَ عَلَى اللّيْلِ و سَخَّرَ الشّمْسَ و القَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لأجَلٍ مُسَمّىً ألا هُوَ العَزِيزُ الغَفّارُ
[* i.e. with the true promise of destruction and ruining on Doomsday.]
The interpretation:
The word يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical)
Now, dear reader, look carefully to the eloquence and clear language of the Quran. Look carefully and think how the Glorious God has declared the sphericity of the Earth, its rotation around itself, the transferring of sunrays upon it and the formation of the day and night, by His saying -be exalted –
يُكَوِّرُ اللّيْلَ عَلى النّهارِ و يُكَوِّرُ النَّهارَ عَلَى اللّيْلِ
The Glorious God said يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical) because the earth is spherical in shape, so the sunrays will spread on half of the sphere so that the day will be on its lightened side, while the night will be in the dark side, then the sunrays will transfer to the other side because of the rotation of the Earth, so that the position of the night will become day, and the position of the day will become night. Therefore, the sunrays get a spherical shape around the Earth, and give it light and heat, and the day and night will result from that.
Then again look carefully, dear reader, to this word and think about its meaning. Can any human being be able to give a synonym of it? Or can he express in such [few] words all this information and knowledge?
This word, alone, suffices as a proof of the truthfulness of Mohammed –peace be on him – and a proof of the existence of a Creator for the universe; because the sphericity of the Earth was unknown to people until the present time[ the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago], and this knowledge and statement have not been discovered and become a reality except in these present days."
- Tomatoes are not poisonous; unless they are touched by an atheist or associater or idolater or disbeliever; because his sweat is filth, and such tomatoes will be filth unless cleaned with water with mentioning God's name.
- The universe was not created in 7 days; the earth and the rest of the solar system planets together with their gaseous layers of their atmospheres; all this was created (: transformed from one state to another) in 6 days.
اللهُ الّذي خَلَقَ السماواتِ والأرضَ و ما بينَهُما في ستّةِ أيّامٍ ثُمّ اسْتَوَى على العرشِ ...
‘The heavens and the earth’ means the planets. And "that which is between them" means the moons. And six days means six thousand years, during which the planets were transformed into earths after being one flaming sun, and during this period: the gaseous layers of the atmosphere were created.
http://universeandquran.site.io/#Formation_of_the_Earth
http://universeandquran.site.io/#The_Gaseous_Heavens
eanassir
Les
Posts: 6,139 
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
June 27th, 2008, 11:12 PM
lmao You are a funny sort, EA. Have you not heard of sarcasm?
2 definitions; the one applicable to my previous post is 2a:
lmao You are a funny sort, EA. Have you not heard of sarcasm?
2 definitions; the one applicable to my previous post is 2a:
Quote:
BTW, I don't read scriptures from holy books anymore. That joke has gone stale on me.
Main Entry: sar·casm 
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut Date: 1550 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut Date: 1550 1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain 2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Council Member
Posts: 1,499
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
June 28th, 2008, 04:57 AM
So, it isn't your SUV that melted the polar ice cap. And by the way, even though the ice cap is supposed to be all but gone, New York City hasn't been flooded.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...e-f48c0dc90304
North America's first carbon tax rolls out under fire
'Civic leader Scott Nelson says he is as worried as anyone about global warming, but that does not make him happy to be one of the first North Americans to pay a carbon tax to curb climate change. Nelson, the mayor of Williams Lake, British Columbia, says record high energy prices mean that the levy, for all its good intentions, could not come at a worse time for residents in his community, a small lumber and ranching town about 525 km (340 miles) north of Vancouver.'
A 'carbon tax' to 'save the earth' from climate change which is NOT caused by carbon emissions. Yeah, makes sense. This is not about the climate, it is about control. and justifying still more taxation of people to fund the building of their own prison.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...37887720080627
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes...'Civic leader Scott Nelson says he is as worried as anyone about global warming, but that does not make him happy to be one of the first North Americans to pay a carbon tax to curb climate change. Nelson, the mayor of Williams Lake, British Columbia, says record high energy prices mean that the levy, for all its good intentions, could not come at a worse time for residents in his community, a small lumber and ranching town about 525 km (340 miles) north of Vancouver.'
A 'carbon tax' to 'save the earth' from climate change which is NOT caused by carbon emissions. Yeah, makes sense. This is not about the climate, it is about control. and justifying still more taxation of people to fund the building of their own prison.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...37887720080627
Study finds Arctic seabed afire with lava-spewing volcanoes
So, it isn't your SUV that melted the polar ice cap. And by the way, even though the ice cap is supposed to be all but gone, New York City hasn't been flooded.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/st...e-f48c0dc90304
Council Member
Posts: 1,787
June 29th, 2008, 07:04 AM
Science by intimidation
REX MURPHY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
June 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM EDT
Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it's a lesson passed by.
In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions. Galileo is the arch example, the pioneer empiricist who rejected the ancient Earth-centric model of the (then known) universe, and for his pains earned the attention and wrath of the distinctly unscientific Inquisition.
I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming, a man who played – as it were – John the Baptist to Al Gore's messianic teachings on the subject. Dr. Hansen is largely credited with “sounding the alarm” on man-made global warming, and he has been a persistent, high-profile and very aggressive proponent of the cause for over two decades now. Dr. Hansen doesn't take kindly to those who dispute his apocalyptic scenarios. I choose the term, apocalyptic, deliberately. According to Dr. Hansen, mankind may have reached the tipping point with global warming. Should that be the case, wide-scale calamity and catastrophe are inevitable. And should we not have reached the point of absolute crisis, should there be a minuscule interval for the human species to act and avert the very worst, according to Dr. Hansen, what yet remains to be faced is still horrible enough indeed.
Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time. They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation; and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself.
They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming. There is lots of room for different, honest opinion on questions so large and complex, questions at the terribly complicated intersection of science, politics and economics.
But, to Dr. Hansen's agitated mind, those who raise such questions, who inject skepticism into the global warming debate, are “deniers.” The word here is becoming commonplace, but it remains a singular slur. A clutch of the global warming believers like to cast all who would argue with them into the polemical pit, the pit being that dissent from orthodox opinion on global warming as the equivalent of Holocaust denial. It is a shameless and vicious tactic, and hardly accords with the nobility that is suppose to drive the conscience of those out to save the planet. Dr. Hansen is overfond of the specious and chilling analogy: He has written of the “crashing glaciers serv(ing) as a Krystal Nacht” and, although he later repented of the metaphor, compared coal trains to “death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” This week, Dr. Hansen went a step even more noxiously forward.
He called for a tribunal, or as I prefer to call it, an Inquisition, to put on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, the CEOs of the big oil companies who, according to Dr. Hansen's frantic view of things, feed the public “misinformation” about the climate crisis. Again the implicit model is to Nuremberg, as the man attempts to put concern for a future – let us call it a probability – on a moral and factual par with the unquestioned, historical, shattering enormity of the Nazi Holocaust.
Is this a scientist speaking? If so, it is more than curious that in the 21st century it is the scientist calling for the secular equivalent of an Inquisition. More to the point, are these the words of a man really certain of his truth, or one who – with the anxiety of the fanatic – is trying to shield it from all rigour of skepticism and inquiry? In either case, I do not question at all the assertion that it is the voice of a man who is neither a friend to reason or science. This is the voice of the scientist-activist consumed with his own virtue and fearful of all dispute.
Science has no need of tribunals or trials, no need of Nuremberg justice, or analogies with the Holocaust. James Hansen's words this week were an offence, an offence against inquiry, against science, against moral seriousness. They were a piece of insolence against the idea of debate itself.
Science by intimidation
REX MURPHY
From Saturday's Globe and Mail
June 27, 2008 at 6:46 PM EDT
Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force. I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists. Real scientists, actually, have learned it. A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it's a lesson passed by.
In the dawn of the Enlightenment, it was scientists who were hauled before tribunals and inquisitions. Galileo is the arch example, the pioneer empiricist who rejected the ancient Earth-centric model of the (then known) universe, and for his pains earned the attention and wrath of the distinctly unscientific Inquisition.
I am drawn to these thoughts, and to the long-decayed example of the Inquisition, by a most curious outburst this week by James Hansen, the principal voice of NASA on the subject of global warming, a man who played – as it were – John the Baptist to Al Gore's messianic teachings on the subject. Dr. Hansen is largely credited with “sounding the alarm” on man-made global warming, and he has been a persistent, high-profile and very aggressive proponent of the cause for over two decades now. Dr. Hansen doesn't take kindly to those who dispute his apocalyptic scenarios. I choose the term, apocalyptic, deliberately. According to Dr. Hansen, mankind may have reached the tipping point with global warming. Should that be the case, wide-scale calamity and catastrophe are inevitable. And should we not have reached the point of absolute crisis, should there be a minuscule interval for the human species to act and avert the very worst, according to Dr. Hansen, what yet remains to be faced is still horrible enough indeed.
Not all the world shares Dr. Hansen's vision of imminent ecological Armageddon. Serious minds, seriously disinterested in the subject, throw up caveats all the time. They question the models of climatological speculation; they question the peculiar mix of man-made and other likely sources of climate dynamics; they question some of the data gathering and some of its interpretation; and they question the very maturity of the highly complex, and experimentally deficient science of global warming itself.
They seriously question, too, the massive policy prescriptions that are being insisted upon as necessary in response to the scientific determinations of man-made global warming. There is lots of room for different, honest opinion on questions so large and complex, questions at the terribly complicated intersection of science, politics and economics.
But, to Dr. Hansen's agitated mind, those who raise such questions, who inject skepticism into the global warming debate, are “deniers.” The word here is becoming commonplace, but it remains a singular slur. A clutch of the global warming believers like to cast all who would argue with them into the polemical pit, the pit being that dissent from orthodox opinion on global warming as the equivalent of Holocaust denial. It is a shameless and vicious tactic, and hardly accords with the nobility that is suppose to drive the conscience of those out to save the planet. Dr. Hansen is overfond of the specious and chilling analogy: He has written of the “crashing glaciers serv(ing) as a Krystal Nacht” and, although he later repented of the metaphor, compared coal trains to “death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.” This week, Dr. Hansen went a step even more noxiously forward.
He called for a tribunal, or as I prefer to call it, an Inquisition, to put on trial for crimes against nature and humanity, the CEOs of the big oil companies who, according to Dr. Hansen's frantic view of things, feed the public “misinformation” about the climate crisis. Again the implicit model is to Nuremberg, as the man attempts to put concern for a future – let us call it a probability – on a moral and factual par with the unquestioned, historical, shattering enormity of the Nazi Holocaust.
Is this a scientist speaking? If so, it is more than curious that in the 21st century it is the scientist calling for the secular equivalent of an Inquisition. More to the point, are these the words of a man really certain of his truth, or one who – with the anxiety of the fanatic – is trying to shield it from all rigour of skepticism and inquiry? In either case, I do not question at all the assertion that it is the voice of a man who is neither a friend to reason or science. This is the voice of the scientist-activist consumed with his own virtue and fearful of all dispute.
Science has no need of tribunals or trials, no need of Nuremberg justice, or analogies with the Holocaust. James Hansen's words this week were an offence, an offence against inquiry, against science, against moral seriousness. They were a piece of insolence against the idea of debate itself.
Les
Posts: 6,139
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
July 1st, 2008, 03:28 AM
Yup. So? There are folks on both sides of the issue with too much ego to be taken very seriously. The facts, however, should be taken seriously. Even if a scientist's ego causes him to be biased, if many other scientists back him up with their own evidence, then his ego is irrelevant. If there is other evidence that conflicts with his/theirs, then there needs to be further investigation and politics and the newsmedia's penchant for sensationalism is irrelevant to the investigation.
Why leap to one side or the other until all the investigations have found enough evidence for the issue to be clear?
Yup. So? There are folks on both sides of the issue with too much ego to be taken very seriously. The facts, however, should be taken seriously. Even if a scientist's ego causes him to be biased, if many other scientists back him up with their own evidence, then his ego is irrelevant. If there is other evidence that conflicts with his/theirs, then there needs to be further investigation and politics and the newsmedia's penchant for sensationalism is irrelevant to the investigation.
Why leap to one side or the other until all the investigations have found enough evidence for the issue to be clear?
Council Member
Posts: 1,787
July 6th, 2008, 07:04 AM
[COLOR=#999999! important]By Penn Jillette
July 3, 2008
My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we've learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything -- even things we hold dear.
James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth. Every year, in Vegas, the James Randi Educational Foundation gathers together for a conference as many like-thinking participants as you can get from people who question whenever people think alike. There are smart, famous and groovy speakers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There's lots of real science stuff with real scientists questioning things that a lot of people take for granted, like ESP, UFOs, faith healing and creationism. It's a party.
Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don't wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn't stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It's not a gig; it's hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.
I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.
The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren't used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I'm used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.
Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: "But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, 'Don't bother me with scientific evidence, I'm going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.' ... Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.
But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?
I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?
Penn Jillette is the louder, bigger half of the magic/comedy team of Penn & Teller.
[/color]
[COLOR=#999999! important]By Penn Jillette
July 3, 2008
My partner, Teller, and I are professional skeptics. We do magic tricks in our live show in Las Vegas, and we have a passion for trying to use what we've learned about fooling people to possibly get a little closer to the truth. Our series on Showtime tries to question everything -- even things we hold dear.
James Randi is our inspiration, our hero, our mentor and our friend. Randi taught us to use our fake magic powers for good. Psychics use tricks to lie to people; Randi uses tricks to tell the truth. Every year, in Vegas, the James Randi Educational Foundation gathers together for a conference as many like-thinking participants as you can get from people who question whenever people think alike. There are smart, famous and groovy speakers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. There's lots of real science stuff with real scientists questioning things that a lot of people take for granted, like ESP, UFOs, faith healing and creationism. It's a party.
Teller and I are always honored to be invited. We don't wear our usual matching gray suits, and Teller doesn't stay in his silent character. Teller chats up a storm. It's not a gig; it's hanging out with friends. During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.
I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.
The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. OK. People who aren't used to public speaking get excited and go off half-cocked. I'm used to public speaking and I go off half-cocked. I live half-cocked. Cut her some slack.
Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. She ends with: "But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, 'Don't bother me with scientific evidence, I'm going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore.' ... Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things."
Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
To be fair (and it's always important to be fair when one is being mean-spirited, sanctimonious and self-righteous), "I don't know" can be a very bad answer when it is disingenuous. You can't answer "I don't know if that happened" about the Holocaust.
But the climate of the whole world is more complicated. I'm not a scientist, and I haven't spent my life studying weather. I'm trying to learn what I can, and while I'm working on it, isn't it OK to say "I don't know"?
I mean, at least in front of a bunch of friendly skeptics?
Penn Jillette is the louder, bigger half of the magic/comedy team of Penn & Teller.
[/color]
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
July 14th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Quoting eanassir The explanation: (He created the heavens and the earth with the true [promise]*; He makes the night spherical on the day, and makes the day spherical on the night; and He subjected the sun and the moon: each running on for an appointed term; surely, He is the All-Mighty, the All-Forgiving!)
[* i.e. with the true promise of destruction and ruining on Doomsday.]
The interpretation:
The word يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical)
Now, dear reader, look carefully to the eloquence and clear language of the Quran. Look carefully and think how the Glorious God has declared the sphericity of the Earth, its rotation around itself, the transferring of sunrays upon it and the formation of the day and night, by His saying -be exalted –
i.e. (He makes the night spherical on the day, and makes the day spherical on the night.)
The Glorious God said يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical) because the earth is spherical in shape, so the sunrays will spread on half of the sphere so that the day will be on its lightened side, while the night will be in the dark side, then the sunrays will transfer to the other side because of the rotation of the Earth, so that the position of the night will become day, and the position of the day will become night. Therefore, the sunrays get a spherical shape around the Earth, and give it light and heat, and the day and night will result from that.
Then again look carefully, dear reader, to this word and think about its meaning. Can any human being be able to give a synonym of it? Or can he express in such [few] words all this information and knowledge?
This word, alone, suffices as a proof of the truthfulness of Mohammed –peace be on him – and a proof of the existence of a Creator for the universe; because the sphericity of the Earth was unknown to people until the present time[ the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago], and this knowledge and statement have not been discovered and become a reality except in these present days."
The explanation: (It is God Who created the heavens and the earth and that which is between them in six [of the] days [of the Hereafter.] Then He mounted the throne …)
‘The heavens and the earth’ means the planets. And "that which is between them" means the moons. And six days means six thousand years, during which the planets were transformed into earths after being one flaming sun, and during this period: the gaseous layers of the atmosphere were created.
http://universeandquran.site.io/#Formation_of_the_Earth
http://universeandquran.site.io/#The_Gaseous_Heavens
eanassir
Oh geez. He doesn't mean it that way. Of course the earth isn't flat. It just means that people are arguing by using emotional manipulation. Yes. People say a lot of things. Out of many things people say, only a few are true.
All these words are wrong; but the truth is: the earth is not flat; tomato is not poisonous and the universe was not created in 7 days.
- The earth is not flat: it is spherical according to "the Quran 39: 5
خَلَقَ السّماواتِ و الأرْضَ بِالحَقِّ يُكَوِّرُ اللّيْلَ عَلى النّهارِ و يُكَوِّرُ النَّهارَ عَلَى اللّيْلِ و سَخَّرَ الشّمْسَ و القَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لأجَلٍ مُسَمّىً ألا هُوَ العَزِيزُ الغَفّارُ
[* i.e. with the true promise of destruction and ruining on Doomsday.]
The interpretation:
The word يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical)
Now, dear reader, look carefully to the eloquence and clear language of the Quran. Look carefully and think how the Glorious God has declared the sphericity of the Earth, its rotation around itself, the transferring of sunrays upon it and the formation of the day and night, by His saying -be exalted –
يُكَوِّرُ اللّيْلَ عَلى النّهارِ و يُكَوِّرُ النَّهارَ عَلَى اللّيْلِ
The Glorious God said يُكَوِّرُ i.e. (makes spherical) because the earth is spherical in shape, so the sunrays will spread on half of the sphere so that the day will be on its lightened side, while the night will be in the dark side, then the sunrays will transfer to the other side because of the rotation of the Earth, so that the position of the night will become day, and the position of the day will become night. Therefore, the sunrays get a spherical shape around the Earth, and give it light and heat, and the day and night will result from that.
Then again look carefully, dear reader, to this word and think about its meaning. Can any human being be able to give a synonym of it? Or can he express in such [few] words all this information and knowledge?
This word, alone, suffices as a proof of the truthfulness of Mohammed –peace be on him – and a proof of the existence of a Creator for the universe; because the sphericity of the Earth was unknown to people until the present time[ the Quran was revealed more than 1400 years ago], and this knowledge and statement have not been discovered and become a reality except in these present days."
- Tomatoes are not poisonous; unless they are touched by an atheist or associater or idolater or disbeliever; because his sweat is filth, and such tomatoes will be filth unless cleaned with water with mentioning God's name.
- The universe was not created in 7 days; the earth and the rest of the solar system planets together with their gaseous layers of their atmospheres; all this was created (: transformed from one state to another) in 6 days.
اللهُ الّذي خَلَقَ السماواتِ والأرضَ و ما بينَهُما في ستّةِ أيّامٍ ثُمّ اسْتَوَى على العرشِ ...
‘The heavens and the earth’ means the planets. And "that which is between them" means the moons. And six days means six thousand years, during which the planets were transformed into earths after being one flaming sun, and during this period: the gaseous layers of the atmosphere were created.
http://universeandquran.site.io/#Formation_of_the_Earth
http://universeandquran.site.io/#The_Gaseous_Heavens
eanassir
Electoral Member
Posts: 942
July 15th, 2008, 12:39 AM
"Out of many things people say, only a few are true", and your words are not of these few.
Quoting typingrandomstuff
What's this "geez" you are accustomed to say; is it something related to Jesus and you mock it (or it may be some of the "non-sense" that you manytimes speak?
Oh geez. He doesn't mean it that way. Of course the earth isn't flat. It just means that people are arguing by using emotional manipulation. Yes. People say a lot of things. Out of many things people say, only a few are true.
"Out of many things people say, only a few are true", and your words are not of these few.
Council Member
Posts: 1,499
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 16th, 2008, 05:17 PM
Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
Posted Jul 16, 2008 02:31 PM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH
"No, no, no, no, no, NO! CO2 is cooking the planet and YOU are to blame and the only way you can atone is to buy and sell carbon tax credits through my brokerage, dammit!" -- Saint Al of the Bore
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer...-co2-myth.html
Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
Posted Jul 16, 2008 02:31 PM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH
"No, no, no, no, no, NO! CO2 is cooking the planet and YOU are to blame and the only way you can atone is to buy and sell carbon tax credits through my brokerage, dammit!" -- Saint Al of the Bore
http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer...-co2-myth.html
Duration_Improvate
Posts: 625
Location: Nearby yet far away
Location: Nearby yet far away
July 18th, 2008, 09:20 AM
I hope you are happy eanassir. First you offend some voodoo people. Now you are planning a fight by confusing people with your voodoos and false references to religious text. I never will understand your type eanassir. It's a discussion. If I did lie, I don't care. What is important for me is to explain the common occurences in this 3-D universe.
I hope you are happy eanassir. First you offend some voodoo people. Now you are planning a fight by confusing people with your voodoos and false references to religious text. I never will understand your type eanassir. It's a discussion. If I did lie, I don't care. What is important for me is to explain the common occurences in this 3-D universe.
Council Member
Posts: 1,499
Location: Canada
Location: Canada
July 19th, 2008, 05:05 AM
Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax
The world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use. But such figures won't deter the agenda of control freaks like Al Gore, who last night publicly called for a carbon tax to be imposed on the use of fossil fuels at a time when even middle class families are struggling to pay the bills as a result of a crippled economy, soaring oil prices and inflation.
Posted Jul 18, 2008 12:24 PM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-w...RMING-IS-A-LIE
Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax
The world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use. But such figures won't deter the agenda of control freaks like Al Gore, who last night publicly called for a carbon tax to be imposed on the use of fossil fuels at a time when even middle class families are struggling to pay the bills as a result of a crippled economy, soaring oil prices and inflation.
Posted Jul 18, 2008 12:24 PM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH
http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-w...RMING-IS-A-LIE
