The Quran and Mountains: Difference between revisions

===Isostasy and mountains as peg-like structures===

====Schematic from Cailleux's ''Anatomy of the Earth''====

Thus, elevation above sea-level tends to correlate positively with the thickness of the Earth's crust at any given place. The reason why the crust tends to exist in this manner is compared to the same physics of floatation whereby the majority of an iceberg suspended in water extends below sea level and, at the same time, it is the case that the taller the portion of ice above sea level, the deeper the iceberg dips down below.  

====Accurate representations of isostasy and exceptions====

====Critical and historical perspectives====

[[File:Mountvstree.png|thumb|425x425px|The 'roots' of mountains and the roots of trees are visually similar]]

If the advocates opt to transition to a metaphorical interpretation here, the critics continue, they have made an arbitrary decision, as the relevant scripture appears to take its own description quite literally (as is generally the case with verses in the Quran describing the step-wise creation of the Earth and heavens).

{{Quote|1=[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%202:6&version=NIV Jonah 2:6 NIV]|2=To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God.}}

Some advocates of the miracle argue that where mountains result from the collision of tectonic plates, they also cause the stability of the Earth. One advocates of the miracle writes as follows:{{Quote||Modern geologists describe the folds in the Earth as giving foundations to the mountains, and their dimensions go roughly one mile to roughly 10 miles. The stability of the Earth's crust results from the phenomenon of these folds.}}Critics, in response, point out the difference between cause and effect, suggesting that the advocates conflate the two, and describe how the formation of mountains is an incidental result of the collision of the tectonic plates, an event which in fact causes rather than prevents earthquakes. The mountains generated at these fault lines are a product of the tectonic collision and cannot be said to in any sense prevent it from taking place.  

Moreover, the critics add, considering the above, these mountains are not acting in any capacity that can be described as peg-like (a better analogy might be the bumper of a car, which crumples upon collision to save the driver, for instance, from being crumpled - but this has nothing to do with pegs and does not serve the purpose of 'stabilization').  

Professor El Naggar presents the above arguments in fewer words and with a less detailed explanation.  

Critics also point out that cratons are stable regions of the earth's crust that are no longer subject to mountain building processes. These craton roots or keels form through the depletion of basaltic elements into the asthenosphere, leading to less dense material that sinks deeper into the mantle due to the lower buoyancy (i.e. the isostasy of the crust, that is, rather than of the mountains).<ref>Sankaran, A.V. - [{{Reference archive|1=http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102001/1158.pdf|2=2011-10-02}} CURRENT SCIENCE] - VOL. 81, NO. 9, 10 NOVEMBER 2001 pp. 1158-1160</ref>

Critics also point out that, as early as the 1920s, scientists noted that earthquakes are concentrated in very specific and narrow zones arounds the planet (known as Wadati-Benioff zones). In 1954, French seismologist J.P. Rothé published a map showing the concentration of earthquakes along the zones indicated by dots and cross-hatched areas.<ref>[{{Reference archive|1=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/zones.html|2=2011-10-02}} Earthquake zones] - U.S. Geological Survey</ref><center>[[File:Map_by_J.P._Rothé.gif|alt=|center|thumb|425x425px|J.P. Rothé's 1954 map]]</center>

{{Quote|[{{Reference archive|1=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/events/1960_05_22_articles.php|2=2011-10-02}} Historic Earthquakes]<BR>U.S. Geological Survey, March 29, 2010|Chile<BR>1960 May 22 19:11:14 UTC <BR>Magnitude 9.5 <BR>The Largest Earthquake in the World <BR><BR>More than 2,000 killed, 3,000 injured, 2,000,000 homeless, and $550 million damage in southern Chile; tsunami caused 61 deaths, $75 million damage in Hawaii; 138 deaths and $50 million damage in Japan; 32 dead and missing in the Philippines; and $500,000 damage to the west coast of the United States.}}The Andes Mountains did not prevent or stabilize this earthquake. On the contrary, later research revealed that the collision of tectonic plates that caused the earthquake also caused the Andes mountains to be raised. Similar earthquakes in the past are responsible for the existence of Andes in the first place. This collision even serves as a textbook example of the general phenomena, as can be seen below.{{Quote|[{{Reference archive|1=http://www.moorlandschool.co.uk/earth/tectonic.htm|2=2011-10-02}} Plate tectonics]<BR>Earth Science From Moorland School|This is a convergent plate boundary, the plates move towards each other. The amount of crust on the surface of the earth remains relatively constant. Therefore, when plates diverge (separate) and form new crust in one area, the plates must converge (come together) in another area and be destroyed. An example of this is the Nazca plate being subducted under the South American plate to form the Andes Mountain Chain.}}[[File:Platetecmap.gif|alt=|center]]

Advocates of the miracle point to George Airy's model of isostasy, which supports the idea that isostasy occurring below mountains causes mountains themselves to be more stable than if isostasy were not occurring below. This, they argue, is another point of evidence that mountains stabilize the Earth as described in the Quran. Critics respond to this argument by stating that George Airy's model says nothing special of mountains, per se, and simply demonstrates that isostasy - that is the extension of the earth's crust below the surface to a degree correlated to the height of the surface at any given point - generally causes the crust of the earth to be stable, whether or not a a given area is mountainous. Moreover, they point out, the fact that a mountain's isostasy causes the mountain to stabilize 'itself' - that is, just as the isostasy of any region causes that same region to be stable - does not mean that the mountain is in any way stabilizing the Earth in general or even the surrounding region in any meaningful way. They summarize this counterargument by suggesting that, on the basis of Airy's model, it can be said that if there were a region possessing a mountain and subject to isostasy, there is no reason to believe that region would be more stable than another, similar region that did not have a mountain but was also subject to isostasy to the same, natural extent.  

Another way the critics put it is that the phenomenon of isostasy is itself responsible for the stability of the crust - whether or not the crust is host to mountains in any given region. Isostasy stabilizes mountains, even terrain, and even indented regions on the Earth's surface. The Mountains do not cause this isostasy any more than isostasy causes mountains, as isostasy is co-occurrent with any variety of terrain - mountainous or otherwise. The co-occurrent isostasy is, however, responsible for the stability of the mountains as well as the crust, and not the other way around - that is, a region excepted from the norms of isostasy (as many are) will not be as stable, whether this region is mountainous or not. Isostasy is best understood as a phenomenon separate from the mountains altogether, as it is no more bound in the simple fact of its existence to the presence of mountains than it is to region of simple, flat crust (even if the specific form it takes in either of these cases is).

In response to the regular co-occurrence of earthquakes and mountains due to their related presence at tectonic fault-lines, advocates of the miracle sometimes argue that the word (''tameeda'') used in the Quran to describe the phenomenon which mountains, as pegs, prevent describes something altogether different from earthquakes. What this phenomenon is, they suggest, is not known, as it has not been observed, which may be due to the fact that it does not take place on a human timescale but rather, perhaps, a geological timescale (that is, over hundreds of thousands or millions of years). The argument is based upon the alternative meanings that the word ''tameeda'' can have, including 'stagger', 'roll', 'sway', and 'tilt', along with the idea that any geological phenomenon described by these alternative meanings of the word ''tameeda'' would be distinct from the short, sharp shock of an earthquake. This, the advocates hold, is important because the Quran deliberately opts not to use the word ''zalzala'' in these contexts, which is used elsewhere in the Quran to describe earthquakes.  

The above and similar studies are referenced by advocates as specific evidence of mountains stabilizing the Earth's crust and undermining seismic activity. Critics respond that although the phenomenon described has a limited stabilizing effect on certain regions favorably positioned vis-à-vis the mountain range, the mountains do not prevent the earthquake outright and, more importantly, that the limited stabilizing effect observed is only relevant if the inhabited area happens to be favorably positioned vis-à-vis the mountain range - this means that if, for instance, the city were located between the mountain and the fault line where the quake originated, even if the city was located near the foot of the mountain, then the destruction experienced by the city would not be reduced in any significant way. Critics have also stated that the dampening effect described above although real in some cases, is, yet again, not a phenomenon that can be described in any plausible way as being peg-like.

*[[Scientific Miracles in the Quran]]

*[[Scientific Errors in the Quran]]

{{Reflist|30em}}