This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

oceans11's Profile

oceans11's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by oceans11

Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher - last commented 27 August 2013 11:13 PM

Scientific Journal publishes Koranic paper - last commented 16 November 2011 08:23 PM

More Discussions by oceans11

Latest Comments by oceans11

Go to: Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher

oceans11's Avatar Jump to comment 98 by oceans11

Nothing you say indicates that the interface cannot be considered as a partition.

After my comments 95 and 96, I thought you will stop simply because you have no point left. But you have to argue simply on the basis of ignorance. And that's unexpected from an Atheist. And I have no reasons to believe that you are one. Sorry! (You are obviously older than me so with all due respect, please stop making silly arguments)

Some Simple Meanings for you from the online dictionary for your help!

Forbidden: not permitted by order or law.

Partition: Something that divides or separates, as a wall dividing one room or cubicle from another.

A child can understand what a "forbidden partition" between two liquids can mean. Unfortunately, you can't. It's really strange! This is the 4th time I am telling you to look at Figure 3 of the paper you suggested . It has all the answers. And every time I told u to look at it, you never gave a reply. C'mon, you told you are an Atheist. What will happen if you accept the truth? Why should you have to "protect" a religion when you claim you don't have one?

I consider the interface layer as ONE of the three separate layers for the purpose of the model described in the University of Barcelona article on arrested saltwedges..

That's what the model does! It simplifies the complicated hyperbolic tangent profiles so as to solve the problem analytically! One can consider it as a separate layer (they have modeled it as a three-layer flow). BUT it doesn't change the argument at all ! This is the 5th time I am telling you to look at Figure 3 of the this paper. The answer is there .

Thank you for your definition of "FORBIDDEN PARTITION" and clarification.

You are welcome! But unfortunately you will never be able to understand it.

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:50:19 UTC | #557100

Go to: Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher

oceans11's Avatar Jump to comment 96 by oceans11

While the strawman arguments of zero mixing and the absence of drinking water in places where turbulent mixing takes place have persisted, the above issues in comment 81 regarding some stratified caves and estuaries with arrested salt wedges, and analogous sea-floor haloclines, remain unaddressed.

Your entire argument is on the basis that you think my definition doesn't include the physics of haloclines.

So here is my rebuttal: Why halocline in between fresh and salt water masses is NOT a forbidden partition but just the opposite:

1) Haloclines are produced by the “mixing” of fresh and salt waters. Mixing and transport takes place within as well as accross the halocline. If two liquids are separated by a “forbidden partition”, it will never happen.

2) The interface between fresh and salt water is time dependent. If you are able to place fresh-water on salt-water in a test-tube, you will find the interface to grow with time giving rise to the halocline. If you stir it a bit, the mixing is enhanced and the halocline disappears. Do the same thing with two immiscible liquids. The interface remains same with time. If you try stirring it, it will seperate again and go back to the initial state.

3) Density is continuous in and across a halocline. Across a “forbidden partition”, the density is always discontinuous.

4) Haloclines result in irreversible gain in potential enegy. If there is a “forbidden partition” between two liquids, potential energy is conserved.

5) Haloclines result in the release of Gibbs Free Energy. If there is a “forbidden partition” between two liquids, this will never happen.

6) Haloclines result in the increase of Entropy of the system. If there is a “forbidden partition” between two liquids, Entropy remains conserved.

All these physical processes occur whenever two liquids mix, and haloclines are governed by exactly the same set of criteria. Hence my definition completely includes it.

If you are unable to address each and every difference I have raised, please don't bother to post! And perhaps you got the point if the words of the Quranic verse "forbidden partition between.." is replaced by just the opposite words, i.e. "permissible interactions between..", then it will be able to accommodate all the different cases. And this itself proves that the verse is not able to address a single case, and that has been my point.

If you think you have any scientific point to discuss on this topic, feel free to email me. I have work to do and I would expect someone with enough scientific knowledge in the subject to enter into a scientific discussion. Please, if you can come up with something scientific backed up with strong arguments, then make a document and email me. I don't enter into debates on biology or history simply because that's not my cup of tea. And I don't want to argue on the basis of ignorance. And I expect the same from others. This is my last post to you (as one of us needs to stop) ! Take Care..

Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:51:09 UTC | #557013

Go to: Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher

oceans11's Avatar Jump to comment 95 by oceans11

In view of the clear definitions (above) of water defined by potability and taste, and the clear indication that the "up to 10%" refers to fresh water NOT the interface partition/barrier strata, the comment below seems frankly ridiculous.

Your entire premise is based on rainwater mixed with 10% ocean water is potable. Firstly rainwater is NOT a Sea (please read the verse again).

Secondly, let me prove that your argument is a strawman argrument.

1) Your definition cannot separate two fundamentally different liquid-liquid systems: You consider fresh water-interface(mixed water)-salt water as three separate layers and the mixed water as a "forbidden partition" in between. Now, this can simply be extrapolated to a 100% mixed estuary system with river(fresh water)- estuary(mixed water and according to your way of thinking, a "forbidden partition" in between river and sea) -sea (salt water). So according to your definition, any liquid-liquid system, whether they mix or they don't will have "forbidden partition in between". Hence your definition cannot accommodate two fundamentally different systems .

2) Your thesis is same as the anti-thesis: Change the words "forbidden partition" by it's opposite words "permissible interactions". Go through the steps as in 1 and you will get the same answer.

If you go to the article on highly stratified estuary which you gave to "show your point", the Figure 3 of the article clearly shows how fresh and salt waters are drawn into and out of the interface so that mixing and transport can take place. It is explained in details in the text. I pointed it out at least 2 times before, but you just ignored it! And this shows WHY the mixture of two waters CANNOT be a "forbidden partition"! Rather it's just the opposite: "permissible interactions".

While the interpretation of the ENGLISH clearly specifies drinking water and a partition, the translation and interpretation of ARABIC and ambiguous unscientific terms I leave to others. I take the view that the concept of molecules was not understood over a thousand years ago.

The potability of water is nowhere in the verse. The verse differentiated the two "seas" by their taste.

If the terms in the Arabic were ambiguous, then how come all the interpreters come to the same conclusion? In fact I told you that the word "barzakhan" used in the verse in English means "isthmus", which is a piece of land separating two seas. According to this verse, it's a dry land which separates river and seas. And that's what the Tafseers write. The most prominent Tafseer by Ibn Kathir writes the same thing.

While the strawman arguments of zero mixing and the absence of drinking water in places where turbulent mixing takes place have persisted, the above issues in comment 81 regarding some stratified caves and estuaries with arrested salt wedges, and analogous sea-floor haloclines, remain unaddressed.

It has been already addressed and included in the definition itself. My definition accommodates all kinds of fresh water-salt water systems in the world (and yes haloclines are included in it)! And for this, again look at the article you gave to me, read it, and refer to Figure 3! Your given article clearly shows that halocline cannot be a "forbidden partition"!

Since you are accusing my argument as straw-man, well go and prove it! I have proved that your argument is straw-man!

Some may wish to debate the translation or the philosophy.

This is the only place where I can agree with you by 50%. The philosophy is open to debate and I agree with it.

As I already said, a debate can go on for life. If you think you can come up with a really strong argument, then apart from posting it here, please email me at ckoceans11@gmail.com. I would really appreciate it. Thanks and good bye oceans11

Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:04:09 UTC | #556955

Go to: Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher

oceans11's Avatar Jump to comment 92 by oceans11

Once again this is repetition of the same wording as the quote in the original post.

Surely it is to show that it's from www.altafsir.com which is from the Govt. of Jordan and accredited by Al-Azhar University which is "the chief centre of Arabic literature and Sunni Islamic learning in the world".

I have given answers @86 and @89 but you refuse to recognise them.

No, you didn't. I asked you specifically that what to you a "forbidden", "inviolable" or a "complete" partition means (the words in "" are taken from the top 3 translations of this verse). You skipped it completely and refused to answer. I asked you to differentiate between partial/incomplete and a forbidden/complete partition. Again you skipped! At your comment 86 you said

I have not claimed that they do not mix, but for some reason you keep asserting this!.

It's not only me (an oceanographer) who, after understanding this verse, says they don't mix. The Islamic scholars do the same. And I have shown you evidences and they are just a google search away from you. For example, you can find it in this Saudi Arabia's website.

I see your link again takes me to the same strawman refutation which does not address the issues I raised.

Frankly speaking, you don't even know what your issue is! If you call 10% mixing as a definition of forbidden partition, then you need to differentiate between partial/incomplete and a forbidden/complete partition. And you are not willing to do that.

I agree there is no point in further argument. I have offered to differ on definitions but you have refused.

You skipped the definition. I also agree that there is no point in further argument since it will continue for life! If in future you have any plans to make your definition and relevant points understandable, then please make a document, upload it somewhere like scribd and I will be happy to look at it.

Thanks for the discussion and good bye! Regards Oceans11

Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:05:35 UTC | #555708

Go to: Fresh water Salt water doesn't mix according to Qur'an- Prof Dawkins in Real time with Bill Maher

oceans11's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by oceans11

...

What happened? Where is your definition? See you didn't answer my questions on 1) Difference between fresh water-salt water system and water-mercury system (and by system it means a thermodynamic system, if you don't know then google it) 2) You didn't give any definitions of what you mean by a forbidden partition 3) You didn't clarify whether to you a 10% mixing can be called a forbidden partition 4) You also escaped the difference I raised between the words "partial" and "forbidden".

It is your TITLE and a child's answer which says it does not allow mixing. The quoted language on the link is poetic and ambiguous. No one can be dogmatic! I am certainly willing to agree to present alternative interpretations. We already have one from TheRationizer@67.

You didn't get my point at all! The language is not at all ambiguous. If you consider it poetic, that's up to you and I have absolutely no problem with any poem. But Muslims consider this verse as a "scientific miracle". It's not me who openly claims that "fresh and salt waters don't mix". You will find 100s of evidences in internet! And believe me, it's not a "child's answer". The Islamic Scholars are unanimous. Please read this from the Tafsir itself.

I suggest the form of:-

If the defininition is understood as (this) ....... then........

or if the defininition is (that)......... then............

My interprertation is at answer 1 above.

I suggest you add yours.

Look, my definition is already here with illustrations. Since you denied to give an answer, there is no point left in the argument. And as you have already noted (from the Tafsir link) that Islamic scholars' understanding of this verse is the same as my understanding. It's only you who are in denial.

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:16:42 UTC | #555632

More Comments by oceans11