Discussion: Quran detailing stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear

[spidergoat]

This isn't the formal debate. And I don't have to provide evidence that Muslims knew about waves from one direction coming on top of waves from another direction. I only have to show that this is something that could have been known at the time, and was known by any maritime culture, especially one as advanced in the art as the Arabs.

 

[786]

This isn't the formal debate. And I don't have to provide evidence that Muslims knew about waves from one direction coming on top of waves from another direction. I only have to show that this is something that could have been known at the time, and was known by any maritime culture, especially one as advanced in the art as the Arabs.

You again fail to move forward from 'wave upon wave'- you ignore the rest of the passage as if it never existed.

'known by any maritime culture'- just name one who believed waves combined- tell which one actually thought them to be layered- and please do speak about how each wave kept its distinct property as a wave and not merge into a single big wave- All things invisible to the naked eye... Instead of making statements just provide evidence..

Well I guess its a 'discussion section'- but If I was the one debating you then you wouldn't provide me with anything- at least you acknowledge your lack of supporting evidence.

Peace be unto you

 

[GeoffP]

I haven't seen any evidence of special knowledge here. Sailors have been on the oceans of the Middle East and the Mediterranean for thousands of years prior to Mohammed. I suggest the discussion move on.

Moreover, the text as written isn't being related to the concept of superimposed waves, but as an allegory of faith and a reminder of dutifulness of that very faith. Now, if this is meant to be a sermon, how exactly is it that Mohammed expects everyone to grasp his allegory, if what he's talking about isn't common knowledge at the time?

"Waves on waves, Mo? - what's all that about? Surely you can go look in the ocean and see right to the bottom, can't you?"

Come on, let's be reasonable and serious here. Do you actually believe that no one knew you couldn't see all the way to the bottom of the bloody ocean?

By comparison: had no one heard of bushel baskets and candles in Jesus' time? "Candle under a basket? Why, I'd never thought of that before!" Does that make Jesus a physicist? It's meant to be a commonplace parable. Enough already.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not a belief, it's an elementary observation, one that can be seen and felt by anyone with any experience on the Ocean.

Interference.

As swell wave trains fan out across the Earth's oceans, waves from different storm systems will eventually meet and collide, causing interference and interesting wave behavior. When swell wave trains collide they can produce several types of interference.

Constructive interference occurs when two swell wave trains have the same wavelength and they combine in-phase. There is no affect on wavelength, but wave height increases

Destructive interference occurs when the wave crest of one swell combines with the wave trough of another. The energy from these swells cancels each other out and the surface becomes calmer.

Commonly, however, swell wave trains combine in mixed interference, producing unpredictable and complex wave patterns and heights. This type of interference may produce rogue waves, extremely large unpredictable waves that can be very dangerous to ships.

On rare occurrences in the open ocean, an unusually large wave may develop. These rogue waves are massive, single waves that can reach extreme heights of 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) or more. It is believed that one cause for rogue waves is overlap of multiple waves that produce an extremely large wave; they tend to occur most frequently downwind of islands and shoals. If storm winds push waves against a strong ocean current, rogue waves can develop. In the Agulhas Current off the southeastern coast of Africa, Antarctic storms push waves northeast into the oncoming current. Rogue waves have destroyed many ships in this region, capsizing them, smashing bow or stern, or lifting them amidships to snap the keel.​

The last example is particularly interesting, as it would have been an effect that Arab sailors would have encountered. Although the interference effect best explains the "waves upon waves" phrase, I learned something interesting. The internal waves that you mention can also be seen from the surface.

Internal waves are disturbances that occur at the boundary between two water masses of different density. The wave heights can be quite large, sometimes exceeding 100 meters (330 feet) and may be formed by tidal movement, turbidity currents, wind stress, or passing ships. The surface expression of the waves is minimal, but if the crests approach the surface they affect the reflection of light from the water.​

So, your and scifes' assertion that internal waves could not have been known about at the time is also wrong.

Source: http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Tw-Z/Waves.html

 

[GeoffP]

I think people give very little credit to the knowledge of the "ancients". Just saw a documentary on History about early uses of engineering for inspiring theological awe. Fascinating show; ingenious machines, really. Well, some were basic but some were great.

 

[786]

Now, if this is meant to be a sermon, how exactly is it that Mohammed expects everyone to grasp his allegory, if what he's talking about isn't common knowledge at the time?

Clearly it is a metaphor- a metaphor can be understood by people without any knowledge or background of it... I've been into at least 5-6 English classes and students bring up their own view which they see- it doesn't require them to know what is being referred to to take out a meaning... Even without knowledge of waves under water- one can still understand the metaphor as many layers of darkness which is the idea that is declared at the end of the passage- they don't have to 'think hard' about the 'waves' to get the idea because the idea is spelled out for them in the end.

Come on, let's be reasonable and serious here. Do you actually believe that no one knew you couldn't see all the way to the bottom of the bloody ocean?

But did they know God could? Secondly the message of the metaphor is clearly stated so they would understand the 'meaning' of it without any reason to consider what it meant by layers of wave- because they know what waves are and all they have to do is put them in 'layers of darkness' which anyone can do- the Arabs were smart enough to know what a metaphor is and that it is the message that counts not the reality of it- so they would STILL understand!

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

It's not a belief, it's an elementary observation, one that can be seen and felt by anyone with any experience on the Ocean.

I didn't ask for a scientific understanding of these things common to us- secondly we know they 'combine' which is what is being stated that your 'Interference' reference. But my question is after they 'combine' how many waves do you see?

On rare occurrences in the open ocean, an unusually large wave may develop. These rogue waves are massive, single waves that can reach extreme heights of 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) or more. It is believed that one cause for rogue waves is overlap of multiple waves that produce an extremely large wave

Even they say that it produces ONE WAVE- And even they don't know that it is actually due to combination of waves- which I said can actually not be observed visibly, as an observer will simply see one wave gradually disappear at the bottom of another wave- which would mean that one wave 'crashed'- this is what is visible- not combination! If it was, this would've already been proven which scientists are STILL working on!

The internal waves that you mention can also be seen from the surface.

they affect the reflection of light from the water.

Note disturbance in reflection from the ocean would have no meaning to 'internal waves'- this is how WE understand it because we have satellite imagery.... You think they said- 'doesn't the reflection of the water look weird' and then one of them responds suddenly 'Well I don't know what is causing it but maybe there are waves underneath!"--- Most logical and simple thing to conclude would be there is something down there that is making the reflection to be awkward--maybe some 'sea monster'? or maybe some 'rock' or something. You wouldn't say 'waves' which are first of all associated with wind- you actually DON'T see the wave!

So, your and scifes' assertion that internal waves could not have been known about at the time is also wrong.

Try again... Although I'm happy that you are starting to look for supportive evidence

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

The question isn't what happens to the waves after you see them combine, it's sufficient to know that when the sea is chaotic, it is the result of waves coming from more than one source.

The waves that happen at boundry layers under the Ocean are visible from the surface. They would know they were waves since they would be repeating. We know about them from satellites, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been known to ancient sailors.

I have shown that surface waves can be "on top" of each other in a layered effect, causing interference. I have shown that other kinds of waves exist which can be visible from the surface or from the shore (tsunamis, internal waves), all of which are successful refutations of the topic being debated, that such things could not have been known without modern scientific gear.

 

[GeoffP]

Clearly it is a metaphor- a metaphor can be understood by people without any knowledge or background of it...

Not so. Also, the point is to make a sermon to the people. If they can't follow the metaphor, there's no point in making it.

But did they know God could?

That makes no sense. Clearly, the metaphor was one which was well understood by the even lightly educated.

 

[iceaura]

Now I have quoted 6 translations- both from spidergoat, scifes, and what I originally quoted (the most widely used translations) and then I'm being accused for finding one which fits my theory?

I'm not "accusing" you of anything - I'm conceding that "layers" are specifically mentioned in some translations, and pointing out that it doesn't matter - your task was to find something in the Quran that detailed stuff impossible to know without modern scientific gear. You have instead presented us with a poetic description of the ocean as commonly visible to anyone in a boat, used as an analogy in a manner similar to its use by poets and storytellers for thousands of years.

And somewhat overdramatic, as poetry, IMHO. You don't need huge crashing waves. One prefers Marianne Moore's use of foam over ripples upon ripples, as she invokes the "layers" we all can see, even from the beach:

From "A Grave" (the line breaks are probably inaccurate)

"- - - -
The ripples move among themselves in a phalanx, beautiful under networks of foam, and fade breathlessly as the sea rustles in and out of the seaweed

the birds swim through the air at top speed, emitting catcalls as heretofor

the tortoiseshell scourges about the feet of the cliffs, in motion beneath them

and the ocean, under the pulsations of lighthouses and the noise of bell buoys, advances as usual, as if it were not that ocean

in which dropped things are bound to sink, in which
if they turn and twist, it is with neither volition nor consciousness"

 

[Michael]

Is it physically possible to have layers of utter (absolute) darkness ? or is this a scientific mistake in the Qur'an? OR, is this simply a relatively common allegory?

 

[786]

You have instead presented us with a poetic description of the ocean as commonly visible to anyone in a boat, used as an analogy in a manner similar to its use by poets and storytellers for thousands of years.

Yes it is poetry- but the complete Quran is poetry- the Quran is 'delivered' in poetry but that does not mean that it has no over-reach to reality- in fact people lived their lives based upon this book- For you to bar it as 'just poetry' is an insult to the billions of Muslims, and for millions before who understood it to be detailing the 'reality' of life and things- not poetry...

You are working under the assumption that it is 'unrelated' as you see it as simply poetry, Muslims of the past certainly did not hold this view- while I'm simply reading it as it is.

One prefers Marianne Moore's use of foam over ripples upon ripples, as she invokes the "layers" we all can see, even from the beach:

Once again you purposefully use phrases such as 'ripple upon ripples' to directly associate it with the Quran- I wonder why you can't let the poetry speak with its words as they are, just like I am letting the face value of the Quran speak for itself.

'Ripples upon ripples' doesn't exist in this poetry- not to mention none of the quoted Quran say 'waves upon waves'-can I ask you what is your intention of creating this phrases if it is not to draw direct parallels (false ones at that) to the Quran- I must question your bias when you bring up things like this and then alter their words as a paraphrase specifically so you draw it closer to the Quran so that you can show that it is just like the Quran. This is intellectual dishonesty at best.

Since there is no 'ripples upon ripples' maybe I shouldn't even bother- but I am still interested in why change the phrasing so that you can use it as evidence- yet I was accused of interpreting the Quran? You are even falsely interpreting supposed 'evidence' that you are providing.

Definition of Phalanx:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phalanx


–noun

1.
(in ancient Greece) a group of heavily armed infantry formed in ranks and files close and deep, with shields joined and long spears overlapping.
2.
any body of troops in close array.
3.
a number of individuals, esp. persons united for a common purpose.
4.
a compact or closely massed body of persons, animals, or things.
5.
Military. (initial capital letter) a radar-controlled U.S. Navy 20mm Gatling-type gun deployed on ships as a last line of defense against antiship cruise missiles.
6.
(in Fourierism) a group of about 1800 persons, living together and holding their property in common.
7.
Anatomy, Zoology. any of the bones of the fingers or toes.
–verb (used without object)
8.
Printing. to arrange the distribution of work in a shop as evenly as possible.

Do armies have one person stand on top of another? Is that how 'ranks' and 'files' are made?

Phalanx is a perfect word for how ripples move one following the other ('common purpose) and a close and distributed..... Obviously foam is always on top, and they are 'networks'..... No mention of depth, no layers, no real depth to anything...

Regardless why did you use the terms 'ripples upon ripples'- I'm not going to respond to you from now on, because I'm not fond of dishonesty-

-----------------

From "A Grave" (the line breaks are probably inaccurate)

"- - - -
The ripples move among themselves in a phalanx, beautiful under networks of foam, and fade breathlessly as the sea rustles in and out of the seaweed

the birds swim through the air at top speed, emitting catcalls as heretofor

the tortoiseshell scourges about the feet of the cliffs, in motion beneath them

and the ocean, under the pulsations of lighthouses and the noise of bell buoys, advances as usual, as if it were not that ocean

in which dropped things are bound to sink, in which
if they turn and twist, it is with neither volition nor consciousness"

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

The question isn't what happens to the waves after you see them combine, it's sufficient to know that when the sea is chaotic, it is the result of waves coming from more than one source.

Yes but waves on the same plane, not of different depths.

The waves that happen at boundry layers under the Ocean are visible from the surface.

What you quoted stated that it disturbs the reflection of light on the ocean- Rocks also disturb reflection, large fish would also, disturbance of reflection doesn't mean that you see waves- you just see a 'disturbed' awkward reflection off of the ocean surface-

They would know they were waves since they would be repeating. We know about them from satellites, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been known to ancient sailors.

Repeating? First of all provide evidence that the reflection you see is a wave! And this is visible on a boat..... I will be waiting for an answer....

I have shown that surface waves can be "on top" of each other in a layered effect, causing interference.

Have you? And AGAIN you are still stuck with 'waves upon waves' but the rest of the passage has apparently skipped you, especially the 'depths of darkness one above another'..... Not to mention the passage started with the property of depth.

I have shown that other kinds of waves exist which can be visible from the surface or from the shore (tsunamis, internal waves),

I've already given a detail response to 'tsunamis', and you have yet to show that what you actually see is 'waves' regarding the 'inernal waves'.

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Is it physically possible to have layers of utter (absolute) darkness ? or is this a scientific mistake in the Qur'an? OR, is this simply a relatively common allegory?

I've explained this to you before... I'm sure you never understood anything...

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

Not so.

Wow... that is so informative. I don't know how to refute this

Also, the point is to make a sermon to the people. If they can't follow the metaphor, there's no point in making it.

But they can because the idea is clearly stated at the end of the metaphor...

That makes no sense. Clearly, the metaphor was one which was well understood by the even lightly educated.

Yes.... Layers of 'darkness one above another'- that is the meaning of the metaphor- They knew about 'waves' and they knew about 'clouds'- they can make perfect sense out of it....

Everyone has their own insight- that is why many students can find many things in a metaphor- there is no 1 way to see meaning in it.

Even if you take a metaphor which is telling of scientific information to students- regardless of their knowledge of the material- they will still be able to take meaning out of it- only thing required is that they at least know what the words means.... 'waves' 'clouds' Arabs knew this.

If you can prove to me that everyone interprets metaphors exactly the same way, I will yield to you on this point.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Yes but waves on the same plane, not of different depths.

Since the same verse talks about darkness upon darkness, one cannot assume that waves upon waves actually refers to waves of different depths.

What you quoted stated that it disturbs the reflection of light on the ocean- Rocks also disturb reflection, large fish would also, disturbance of reflection doesn't mean that you see waves- you just see a 'disturbed' awkward reflection off of the ocean surface-

The operative word is "see". If you can see it, you don't need any special scientific equipment or training. If it repeats like waves generally do, then even the uneducated could think it's a kind of waves beneath the surface.

Repeating? First of all provide evidence that the reflection you see is a wave! And this is visible on a boat..... I will be waiting for an answer....

I quoted a website that said these internal waves could be visible from the surface.

Have you? And AGAIN you are still stuck with 'waves upon waves' but the rest of the passage has apparently skipped you, especially the 'depths of darkness one above another'..... Not to mention the passage started with the property of depth.

Again, darkness above darkness doesn't seem literally true, so we don't have to assume that waves upon waves is literally true.

I've already given a detail response to 'tsunamis', and you have yet to show that what you actually see is 'waves' regarding the 'inernal waves'.

Maybe Arab sailors weren't sure what they saw, and made a hypothesis that the visual effects were underwater waves.

I happen to think this is making everything overly complicated.

 

[786]

Since the same verse talks about darkness upon darkness, one cannot assume that waves upon waves actually refers to waves of different depths.

The verse STARTED with darkness! Then it explained it with examples like CLOUDS... Then it SUMMED IT UP by saying 'darkness above darkness'...

Opening... Body.... Closing/Summary/Conclusion- do you not even now know how to read? If you don't have experience reading literature then its okay, we can do this some other time.

The operative word is "see". If you can see it, you don't need any special scientific equipment or training. If it repeats like waves generally do, then even the uneducated could think it's a kind of waves beneath the surface.

What do you see? I guess I'll quote your source:

'they affect the reflection of light from the water.'--- So what do you see?

Perhaps the 'operative word' is AFFECT!--- What do they 'affect'? The reflection? What reflection? Of light...
From where? Water (ocean)

But if they 'affect' 'reflection' then is there 'reflection' without them? Yes! Otherwise they can't 'affect' something that isn't there..... You don't need internal waves to see reflection on the ocean, that's for sure.

Internal waves AFFECT the REFLECTION of light FROM WATER----

WHERE DOES IT SAY YOU SEE WAVES? Even a ROCK AFFECT the REFLECTION of light FROM WATER because they disturb the the otherwise 'smooth' water... Reflection is affected by surfaces that are present.

So if you see a reflection affected by a rock, you see an internal wave? I want you to provide evidence that the 'affected reflection' actually shows a 'wave' to a person sitting in a boat. Its quite simple!

I quoted a website that said these internal waves could be visible from the surface.

The website does NOT say 'internal waves could be visible from the surface'- it said that they 'affect reflection'- There is a BIG BIG difference... Are you a student of science? I'm appalled at the level of information you are actually offering as 'evidence'.

Again, darkness above darkness doesn't seem literally true, so we don't have to assume that waves upon waves is literally true.

I explained this to you before, and yes it is literally true.

Maybe Arab sailors weren't sure what they saw, and made a hypothesis that the visual effects were underwater waves.

Lol.... so are you superimposing YOUR knowledge on to them? Why would they not take the most simple approach and say they are rocks or some other thing, when waves are associated with wind- that is why wind direction was so important.... And 'disturbed' reflection could be a cause of anything- rock, fish, garbage! Did they believe there was wind in the depths of the ocean?

I happen to think this is making everything overly complicated.

You are making it overly complicated... the model I stated that is easily visible in the Quran is there- you just can't lose this debate so it sure as heck gets complicated when you're running around with unsupported baseless claims.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Let me ask you this, what do you see when you see a normal wave? Is it not light that is reflected from the wave and hits your eye? So to see a change in the reflective qualities of the surface of the water would be the same as seeing something happen down there. The point is there is a visual effect, one that I assume is repetitive as waves are.

 

[GeoffP]

Wow... that is so informative. I don't know how to refute this

Don't be discouraged.

But they can because the idea is clearly stated at the end of the metaphor...

Interesting. Let's examine this statement in context from your next one:

Yes.... Layers of 'darkness one above another'- that is the meaning of the metaphor- They knew about 'waves' and they knew about 'clouds'- they can make perfect sense out of it....

And that's game. They already knew about waves.

 

[Michael]

Yes it is poetry- but the complete Quran is poetry- the Quran is 'delivered' in poetry but that does not mean that it has no over-reach to reality- in fact people lived their lives based upon this book- For you to bar it as 'just poetry' is an insult to the billions of Muslims, and for millions before who understood it to be detailing the 'reality' of life and things- not poetry...

These logical fallacies come to mind.

Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Tradition

Not to mention you insult Christians when you suggest the Bible has been corrupted. You insult Shinto and Hindu when you suggest their Gods are not true. You insult Scientologists when you suggest their Holy Book is not true.




That aside, iceaura has already posted THREE other poems that say the same thing (and I'm sure there are more and many more that were never written down, lost or forgotten).


Lastly, you changed utter (absolute) darkness to mean "shade of black" - which wasn't what that verse said. You're convoluted and contorting your argument any which way to fit your preconceived notion that the Qur'an is special. THAT should tell you something about the way you're approaching the problem.