Our cooling world
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
You admitted at last that the spin is slow of these objects: the Moon, Venus and Mercury; didn't you?
I am trying uselessly to bring you and Dexter to consider anything other than the textbooks.
So in spite of your science, you don't see what is behind the news: you see such objects are slow, but you don't accept that it is because of their cold cores.
And you refuse to think that the earth will follow them in this way of slowing then stopping its spinning.
The standstill of the earth
Last edited:
Admitted? There is no reluctance on my part to state the truth. Again, it's demonstrable that these objects are still spinning.
What you're spinning, is nonsense.
We have...but consider doesn't mean we accept bad science, or anything that masquerades as science without evidence affirming the veracity of the statement. What you are peddling is guided from first principles in theology, not first principles in physics.
So, what we have done is considered the context within which your claims are made.
Maybe you ought to try to considering the first principles from a textbook...a scientific textbook.
These days I have a very bad internet service.
Tonnington, this is not any bad science; it is marvelous.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/universe/index.htm
So leave the "nonsense" of Dexter which you have now started to spin around
I tell you the truth: many of people admired this explanation as in The Universe and the Quran
But most of them have not been successful in grasping the ideas included in it.
http://www.quran-ayat.com/universe/index.htm
So leave the "nonsense" of Dexter which you have now started to spin around
I tell you the truth: many of people admired this explanation as in The Universe and the Quran
But most of them have not been successful in grasping the ideas included in it.
Many websites refused it with much mockery; but alas they will discover later on that it is correct: and I remind you when we said (not long time ago) there is water on Mars and most of them arouse against it, and said: no water but only frozen CO2, and now they deny that they denied this before.
And we said: there is life on Mars and the rest of the planets: and they say: never.
And we said: there are people on Mars and they ridiculed it and shouted: never never.
And we said: there are people on Mars and they ridiculed it and shouted: never never.
This is called in the Quran: "misguidance inspite of having science" or inspite of being scientists.
As in the Quran 45: 23
As in the Quran 45: 23
أَفَرَأَيْتَ مَنِ اتَّخَذَ إِلَهَهُ هَوَاهُ وَأَضَلَّهُ اللَّهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ وَخَتَمَ عَلَى سَمْعِهِ وَقَلْبِهِ وَجَعَلَ عَلَى بَصَرِهِ غِشَاوَةً فَمَن يَهْدِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ اللَّهِ أَفَلَا تَذَكَّرُونَ
The explanation:
(Have you considered him who takes as his god according to his desires,
and God leads him astray in spite of having knowledge,
and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and has placed upon his eyesight a covering?
Who then shall guide him after God [misguided him?] Will you not then reflect?)
It means: inspite of being a scientist or having the science knowledge of physics, medicine, astronomy, geology …etc; evenso he is misguided and is straying away from the true and correct way.
(Have you considered him who takes as his god according to his desires,
and God leads him astray in spite of having knowledge,
and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart, and has placed upon his eyesight a covering?
Who then shall guide him after God [misguided him?] Will you not then reflect?)
It means: inspite of being a scientist or having the science knowledge of physics, medicine, astronomy, geology …etc; evenso he is misguided and is straying away from the true and correct way.
It would be ironic if Avro ever used arguments from Suzuki as support. He hasn't. So no, not ironic.
What's ironic is your support for the Royal Society report-or rather for the Calgary Herald editorial version- and your insistence that it is incompatible with the review conducted by the IPCC.
But the collective messianic presence at the IPCC are A-OK though, right?
So, that's the crux of your rebuttal, eh?... Because the article was offered by a Calgary based media group, it can't have any credibility?
I'm not surprised that the AGW position has degenerated to this level - if you can't actually address the Royal Society's position in limiting and pulling their support from your position, deflect the issue.
There's books out there which can help you with reading comprehension problems. It's the editorial content which detracts from the credibility...
I did. I addressed the direct quotations that the editorial used. I agree with them completely, and they do not limit or pull any support from an anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
I'm guessing that you skipped you English languages classes low those many years... I highlighted direct quotes Mr. Science.
Great, so we're on the same page then... The consensus is that there is no proof that GW can be specifically pinned primarily on a human influence.
(I highlighted the important word to help you with your comprehension issues)
So? You can put lipstick on too, that doesn't make you a pretty lady.
Not even close. I read the actual report. You read a newspaper article. That's not the same page. When you read the report, and you get the full context, the conclusions are very different than the CH cherry picked quotations misrepresenting the report.
Did I say that?
I have some issues with the leadership, but not the actual climate scientists.
Suzuki and Gore have nothing to do with climate science, unless you can find some papers they have written on climate that have been peer reviewed.
What's sad is you throw up an OP-ED as fact without ever reading the actual report.
You still haven't.
Personally I think you're just goofing around, even you're not willfully this ignorant.
Good gag though.
Why are you so choked up? My statement was based on your off-handed statement.
This is about GW being driven (highly impacted) by humanity or not. While I'll agree with you on the politicization of the issue by leadership/high profile people, the main thrust of the controversy is pretty black and white.
That said, there isn't much of an in between.
Sorry about the bold lettering by the way, I did it primarily for the benefit of someone other than yourself.
Don't fool yourself on this, the IPCC is not very far behind Gore and Suzuki.
You have no idea whether or not I read the original report- I suppose that's why you continue to concentrate on that. Regardless, my focus was on a portion of the op/ed piece that was derived directly from the actual report. There is no mistaking the message and there is no room for alternate interpretation. The Academy reached a conclusion that was in direct opposition to the notion that humanity is, definitively, a main component of GW.
Just because the Royal Academy doesn't parallel your individual beliefs does not matter, BUT, there is no amount of diversion or 2-stepping that will change the conclusions that were published.
I've often thought the very same of you.
You can apply as much smoke-screen as you like. It won't change their conclusions one iota.
Do you see yourself as the leading authority on every possible topic? Well, I suppose that the Royal Academy just should have called you up and asked the question and saved themselves so much time and effort. I'm a little curious by the way. Do you read hieroglyphics, or do you just look at the images and pretend full knowledge like on this topic?
I don't know what part of this you don't get... The conclusions are pretty clear, in terms of what I am driving at, yet somehow you are not prepared to accept the conclusions by this group.
Well, clearly what your saying is complete bullcrap.
In view of the ongoing public and political debates about climate change, the aim of this
document is to summarise the current scientific evidence on climate change and its
drivers. It lays out clearly where the science is well established, where there is wide
consensus but continuing debate, and where there remains substantial uncertainty. The
impacts of climate change, as distinct from the causes, are not considered here. This
document draws upon recent evidence and builds on the Fourth Assessment Report of
Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in
2007, which is the most comprehensive source of climate science and its uncertainties.
There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human
activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last
half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation
over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are
likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.
You're right that your effort is useless, but it's disingenuous to claim you're trying to get us to consider "anything other than the textbooks." There's only one thing you're trying to get us to consider: taking the Quran seriously as a source of scientific information. That's the book that claims, among other fatuous nonsense, that salt water and fresh water don't mix (Allah forbids it in surah 25:53, if you're interested), a claim easily falsified by a simple demonstration you can do in your kitchen. And I know exactly how you'd rationalize that too, by pretending it means something other than what it plainly says* and pointing to things like thermoclines and the incomplete mixing of salt and fresh water where a river enters the ocean.
*And He it is Who hath given independence to the two seas (though they meet); one palatable, sweet, and the other saltish, bitter; and hath set a bar and a forbidding ban between them.
The Quran is not the textbook that you mean; it is a scientific book: because it is absolutely true and correct: it may be you know some statement and you think in this century that it is correct while it is not and it will be known in the next century; therefore God does not give you in the Quran everything according to your level of knowledge which is defective, but He gives the correct and true statement and because God is All-Truthful.
So this is the aya 25: 53to which you pointed and its interpretation:
وَهُوَ الَّذِي مَرَجَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ هَذَا عَذْبٌ فُرَاتٌ وَهَذَا مِلْحٌ أُجَاجٌ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَهُمَا بَرْزَخًا وَحِجْرًا مَّحْجُورًا
The explanation:
(It is He Who made the two seas surge: this is cold, palatable and pure and that is salt and bitter [to taste],
and He made a barrier between them and an impeding partition.)
(It is He Who made the two seas surge: this is cold, palatable and pure and that is salt and bitter [to taste],
and He made a barrier between them and an impeding partition.)
The interpretation:
>> (It is He Who made the two seas surge) by storms and tempests:
This points to the story of Moses and Pharaoh: when Pharaoh pursued Moses and his people in their Exodus; so God sent the storms on the Nile river and the Red Sea, and it was a stormy weather: the water evaporated from both the sweet and cold Nile river and the salty unpalatable water of the Red Sea, and the vapor of both the sweet and salty water met in the sky and clouds were formed and rain came on Pharaoh and his host profusely and there were thunders and lightning in order to hinder Pharaoh and his host to bring them to the decreed appointment to save Moses and his people and drown Pharaoh and his host before the eyes of Moses and his people.
>> (and He made a barrier between them) for the Children of Israel to cross along it,
>> (and an impeding partition) that prevented the water from reaching the Children of Israel.
My comment:
God made Moses and his people victorious; because Moses was His loyal servant and the Israelites at that time were devoted to Him alone without associate.
Moreover, the aya does not mean that the salt water cannot be mixed with the sweet water, but it indicates that the sweet water does not mix with the salt water because of some land partition preventing them from mixing up; and if they mix up then people cannot find the palatable water to drink.
quran-ayat.com
>> (It is He Who made the two seas surge) by storms and tempests:
This points to the story of Moses and Pharaoh: when Pharaoh pursued Moses and his people in their Exodus; so God sent the storms on the Nile river and the Red Sea, and it was a stormy weather: the water evaporated from both the sweet and cold Nile river and the salty unpalatable water of the Red Sea, and the vapor of both the sweet and salty water met in the sky and clouds were formed and rain came on Pharaoh and his host profusely and there were thunders and lightning in order to hinder Pharaoh and his host to bring them to the decreed appointment to save Moses and his people and drown Pharaoh and his host before the eyes of Moses and his people.
>> (and He made a barrier between them) for the Children of Israel to cross along it,
>> (and an impeding partition) that prevented the water from reaching the Children of Israel.
My comment:
God made Moses and his people victorious; because Moses was His loyal servant and the Israelites at that time were devoted to Him alone without associate.
Moreover, the aya does not mean that the salt water cannot be mixed with the sweet water, but it indicates that the sweet water does not mix with the salt water because of some land partition preventing them from mixing up; and if they mix up then people cannot find the palatable water to drink.
quran-ayat.com
Last edited:
You lie. You don't know you're lying, but you lie nonetheless. I suppose I could be generous and just say you err, but you've had the scientific realities explained to you so many times by so many people and just denied them because they're not consistent with your silly book, that I think lying is the appropriate label for what you're offering. Prove to me that Mercury and Venus and the moon do not rotate, explain why the observational evidence that they do is wrong, without reference to the Quran or al-Hilly's fatuous and ignorant interpretation of it. Give me evidence, not revelation.
Casuistry worthy of a Jesuit. That line about the immiscible nature of salt and fresh water stands alone, it's a complete non-sequitur, there's no context at all in any of the statements around it, which is true of much of the Quran. I read it and find about every fourth or fifth sentence is absurdly unrelated to anything around it.