an Amazing miracle from holy quran

[IneXorabLe]

Subhan Allah

before starting, according to the geological fact that the earth is divided in to two:
1-water: 71.11111111111 % of total earth surface
2- land: 28.88888888889 % of total earth surface

it is amzing that this fact is already mentioned in Holy Quran , long time before science can discover.

the aord "seas" in holy Quran is repeated 32 times and the word " Land" mentioned 13 times

Land + Seas = 32+13= 45

now take the percentage of each out of total:

seas (water) = 32/45 x 100 = 71.11111111111 %
land = 13/45 X 100 = 28.88888888889 %

subhan allah
æãÇ íäØÞ Úä Çáåæì ¡ Åä åæ ÅáÇ æÍí íæÍì ¡ Úáãå ÔÏíÏ ÇáÞæì"

[SadLad]

Glory be to god.
Thanx for sharing

[Namika]

I just have one thing to say... Sub7an Allah

[Scorpio27]

We can tell that Islam is pure Science.
There may be wrong theory in Science not in Islam.
We Muslims have to make the Islam cherish by our act and attitude.

[Delicate]

Sub7ana Allah


Originally posted by Hasnain
We can tell that Islam is pure Science.
There may be wrong theory in Science not in Islam.
We Muslims have to make the Islam cherish by our act and attitude. Correct!

[MoonChild]

Estimate 1: Coble, Charles R; Murray, Elaine G; Rice, Dole R. Earth Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987: 102. Land area = 148,300 sq km of 510,100,000 = 29.0727%

Estimate 2: Science Desk Reference American Scientific. New York: Wiley, 1999: 180. Land area = 150,000 sq km = 29.406%

Estimate 3: Weast, Robert C. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 61st edtion. Chemical Rubber Co., 1981: F-202. Land area = 148,847 sq km = 29.18%


OK, it's close. But if you would bother to check the verifiable facts you see that the "exact match" you've been told about is a lie.

[Abs]

Originally posted by MoonChild
Estimate 1: Coble, Charles R; Murray, Elaine G; Rice, Dole R. Earth Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987: 102. Land area = 148,300 sq km of 510,100,000 = 29.0727%

Estimate 2: Science Desk Reference American Scientific. New York: Wiley, 1999: 180. Land area = 150,000 sq km = 29.406%

Estimate 3: Weast, Robert C. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 61st edtion. Chemical Rubber Co., 1981: F-202. Land area = 148,847 sq km = 29.18%


OK, it's close. But if you would bother to check the verifiable facts you see that the "exact match" you've been told about is a lie.

moonchild all the facts that you have given above seem to differ from book to book.....Its common knowledge that the land area worldwide is 28.8 % just like common knowledge that colour of milk is white unless you have another book to show us that color of milk is something else.

So praise almighty Allah and he'll forgive you for whatever you have just said.

[jack]

Its common knowledge that the land area worldwide is 28.8 % just like common knowledge that colour of milk is white unless you have another book to show us that color of milk is something else.It's common knowledge with the understanding "plate techtonics" that this number is changing constantly.

That's real science knowledge.....

[MoonChild]

Originally posted by Abs
moonchild all the facts that you have given above seem to differ from book to book.....

Yes, because they are all estimates because it is very difficult to measure exactly what the area of all land mass is, particularly as sea levels fluctuate it keeps changing!

Common knowledge?! pardon me but that's the dumbest thing I've heard all day. It's a MEASUREMENT - so go measure it!!!!!!!

show me the source of your measurement- and stop waving your hands around talking about "common knowledge" - I'm willing to be convinced but it is no more "common knowledge" than the volume of the ocean!!!


I mean, come'on - you really think it's as obvious as the color of milk? You can just look out your window and see the area of the globe's landmass? I defy you to even do that to your front yard!

Oh, by the way, is the land mass value that you are using calculated including the "flat land" value of each plot of land, or does a mountain count for more as it goes up and down? (it changes the numbers dramatically, as you can plainly see).

[silver_ring]

good thread .. and subahn ALlah
WHY did they reject the truth always ?? shall they will believe in it ,if it was from Bible?? :confused:

[MoonChild]

Originally posted by silver_ring
WHY did they reject the truth always ?? shall they will believe in it ,if it was from Bible?? :confused:

LOL I only ask that you check your facts- what was presented is easily shown to be incorrect from the FACTS that can be measured. I hold all claims, from all religions, to the same criteria of verification according to the best of our ability. (the Bible fails this test, therefore I do not hold it to be the word of God, as I don't believe God would LIE).

If the Quran says the sky is green, and you look up and see a blue sky, which do you believe?!

Besides, the Quran doesn't say the earth is 28.8999999% land!

[Shinoda LP]

What the!?!

:D :sweat: :D :sweat: :D :sweat: :D :sweat: :D :sweat: :D :sweat: :D

Sorry, but sometimes you people just make me laugh 'n laugh 'n ...

.....

A few thousands (millions?) of years ago, probably the percentage of the # of times, the word 'human' being mentioned in the Quran would have matched the actual population of the world. (Boo to the family planning skills of China and India, it won't ever be true!)

[sanwin25]

Me too !

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

[nana]

Sub7anah ALLAh wa LA ILLAHA ILLA ALLAH wa ALLAHU AKBAR

[IneXorabLe]

i don't know what is your problem moonchild...
so you don't like that there is a different between 28.8888 and 29.4 %...

dear moonchild,
measurements of units has many variability depending on the machine used and the person using it.
there is a term called internal and external validity of a machine ... search on the net and you will get some information about it.

it is same as blood pressure machine, thermometers,. pH measuring machine. radiation intensity ......etc.



Oh, by the way, is the land mass value that you are using calculated including the "flat land" value of each plot of land, or does a mountain count for more as it goes up and down? (it changes the numbers dramatically, as you can plainly see). i think i mentioned surface area, i am not sure but i think if you read the articles you have provided.. then they will mention what is the best SCIENTIFIC method in measuring land surface , i mean to includes high and lows.

i am confused , why you argue on this issue, that 28.8 is different from 29.4 .... in measurment there is always a confidence interval.. ( = value +/- 1.96xS.E) . S.E = standard error.... and this equation varifies that there is always an error in measurments by machine and human..

[IneXorabLe]

i don't know what is your problem moonchild...
so you don't like that there is a different between 28.8888 and 29.4 %...

dear moonchild,
measurements of units has many variability depending on the machine used and the person using it.
there is a term called internal and external validity of a machine ... search on the net and you will get some information about it.

it is same as blood pressure machine, thermometers,. pH measuring machine. radiation intensity ......etc.



Oh, by the way, is the land mass value that you are using calculated including the "flat land" value of each plot of land, or does a mountain count for more as it goes up and down? (it changes the numbers dramatically, as you can plainly see). i think i mentioned surface area, i am not sure but i think if you read the articles you have provided.. then they will mention what is the best SCIENTIFIC method in measuring land surface , i mean to include high and lows or not.

i am confused , why do you argue on this issue, that 28.8 is different from 29.4 .... in measurment there is always a confidence interval.. ( = value +/- 1.96xS.E) . S.E = standard error.... and this equation varifies that there is always an error in measurments by machine and human..

[MoonChild]

Certainly. Provide me with the confidence interval of your measurement of 28.88888888889%, as well as the source of the measurement.

So far, all you've given me is that is "common knowledge" ... which is conveniently EXACTLY the same as some numerology thingy from the Quran, out to 13 significant digits ... then wave your arms around and whine about measurement errors and confidence intervals.

Sure now, let's spell it out for you. You can't invoke measurements errors until you actually PROVIDE A MEASUREMENT. Further, you can't invoke confidence intervals until you actually PROVIDE SEVERAL MEASUREMENTS AND TAKE THEIR AVERAGE.

Waiting eagerly for your proofs :p

[Talius Brute]

Sea levels / land areas change enormously and have changed considerably even over the last 1400 years, this is a dangerous zionist trap for Islam - since in a few years the figures will certainly be wrong as the water levels rise due to global warming and then the opponents of Islam will come out proclaiming that the Quran is no longer correct.

[el7ilwa]

If they closed their eyes from seeing the truth Here (http://www.englishsabla.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14812&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) so how do u want them to belive it now??!! Let them live in the dark:rolleyes:

[IneXorabLe]

dear moonchild, i think there is onething which makes us argue about which the believe that the vreator is allah.

we muslim believe and without doubt that the creator is allah and he is never mistaken. The Holy Quran is a book from Allah and it is a challenge book for human to explain and understand it. But we are not perfect in the sence that we are trying our best to explore what is hidden in Holy Quran and this does not mean we don't fall into mistakes.

regarding science, there are many scientific facts mentioned in holy Quran some of them are direct and some aren't .
regarding the land/sea ratio, these interpretation is done by human and it might be wrong or right, but you can't deney that it is not close to the observed and measured value which is 29,9.

and in your post you were pointing and stressing that 28,8 is different from 29%. In my above post i tried to explain that there is no difference between 29 and 28.8 % if we take teh confidence intervals.

[sanwin25]

If Allah wanted to tell you the ratio of land to sea He would have said so directly instead of waiting for an muslim scholar with time on his hand to try to see maths where there is none.

[MoonChild]

Originally posted by IneXorabLe
and in your post you were pointing and stressing that 28,8 is different from 29%. In my above post i tried to explain that there is no difference between 29 and 28.8 % if we take teh confidence intervals.

I'm a statistician by training and profession. You are quite correct, it is possible that 29.x is not significantly different from 28.8 - although the measurements that I provided ARE statistically significantly above 28.8.

I have been trying to point out to you that the evidence does not support your assertion that the land mass is EXACTLY the same as some ratio taken from the Quran (your words, not mine). If you are willing to claim "measurement error" of .5%, then it makes no sense to argue for a 13-significant-digit answer.

I am open to actual supporting evidence for your position, but you have not provided it.