Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: blind man scoring a bullseye?

  1. #1
    heckle the snobs scifes's Avatar
    Posts
    2,555

    blind man scoring a bullseye?

    i usually discard any scientific mathematical relations "discovered" in the quran, because with such a large text, you play around with letters, words, numbers and a little imagination to make any "prediction" you want, but...
    the consensus is 70.8% (71%) of the surface is water, 29.2 % is land. Other figures suggest the percentage of water (on Earth) is 71.11% and the percentage of land (on Earth) is 28.89%.
    AND,
    the word "seas" has been mentioned 32 time in the quran, "land" was mentioned 13 times.
    and so, with simple math, of the times "seas" and "land" were mentioned in the quran, "land" was mentioned 71.11% of the time[use a calculator] and "land" was mentioned 28.89%!

    my mind is boggled...i mean, to the hundredths????!!!

    oh and i just checked sites to compare the two percentages, 71.11% seems more prominent, wikipedia just said 71%..

    man i feel all tingly inside

  2. #2
    Your link doesn't say how those numbers were derived, and it sounds far too precise to be anything other than figures provided by a Quranic apologist.
    Last edited by spidergoat; 02-23-11 at 04:06 PM.

  3. #3
    The word "ocean" also seems to be mentioned 13 times. Did you factor that into your calculation? Or are we going to quibble over semantics?

  4. #4
    heckle the snobs scifes's Avatar
    Posts
    2,555
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    Your link doesn't say how those numbers were derived, and it sounds far too precise to be anything other than figures provides by a Quranic apologist.
    and i thought you were a scientist

    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    The word "ocean" also seems to be mentioned 13 times. Did you factor that into your calculation? Or are we going to quibble over semantics?
    you mean in arabic?
    you sure?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by scifes View Post
    and i thought you were a scientist
    Just a fan. But that is a scientist's role, to double check the figures that others supply. So far there is no legitimate source. If you can find one, I would agree it is an amazing coincidence.

  6. #6
    Registered Member
    Posts
    1

    truly

    just amazing

  7. #7
    In fact these numbers do not correspond to those exact measurements:
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml

    ...and the source is listed. I don't think it's even possible to determine this with such a degree of precision, since the ocean levels are always changing, and land is always being eroded away.

Similar Threads

  1. By Hallam Willis in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 07-03-09, 02:36 AM
    Replies: 113
  2. By Syzygys in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 05-13-08, 01:06 PM
    Replies: 0
  3. By Syzygys in forum Politics
    Last Post: 03-30-08, 09:19 PM
    Replies: 10
  4. By spuriousmonkey in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 10-19-07, 10:42 AM
    Replies: 4
  5. By countezero in forum Politics
    Last Post: 06-26-07, 01:37 PM
    Replies: 75

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •