Although, to be honest, both of you are choosing to miss out this little clanger I found when looking for a version of the quote with your preferred grammar:
"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit."
One word: Eclipse.
Sooooooo, yet another 'miracle' bites the dust.
NEXT!
you actually do your own judgements yourself and rate your own comments.. LOL keep commenting, am laughing my ass off here  Because I'm the only one presenting objectively reasoned facts to prove your claims towards 'miracles' in your book as being utter tripe. You just keep on repeating the same text as though that somehow qualifies as an answer. http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Quran_and_science.htmIn verses 36:38–40 we read the following (my emphasis): 36:38 “And the sun runs his course for a period determined for him: that is the decree of (Him), the Exalted in Might, the All-Knowing. 36:39 And the Moon, — We have measured for her mansions (to traverse) till she returns like the old (and withered) lower part of a date-stalk. 36:40 It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day; each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law).” What? “It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon?” The above verse is either ridiculous or wrong, depending on whether we try to understand it from the modern perspective or from the Bedouins’ perspective, respectively. Here is why:  From the modern perspective, to say that the Sun tries to catch up the Moon (but is not permitted to do so) is laughably naïve. The Moon’s orbit around the Earth has no overlap with the Sun’s location in space, since the Moon orbits the Earth once in around 27.3 days (the “sidereal month”), and the system Earth–Moon orbits the Sun once per year (see diagram). The orbit of the Moon (gray) around the Earth’s orbit (blue circle) and around the Sun (red, center). Note: not drawn to scale, and also the Moon completes approximately 13 turns in a year, not exactly 13. Observation from this diagram: to say that the Sun, in reality, “tries to catch up the Moon”, makes no sense at all. So, because according to what we know today it is just plain stupid to say that the Sun tries to catch up the Moon, there is only one possibility: that verse 36:40 was said that way for the Bedouins to make some sense of it. But in that case,... it’s wrong again! Seeing as you did the same thing with the first 'miracle' of the mosque, I'm assuming you want to do the same thing with the 'miracle' of the absurd Sun/Moon quote, so I'm saying go for it. Let's have the next one seeing as you have nothing to challenge my take-down of your 'miracles.' |
|
|
|
|
Although, to be honest, both of you are choosing to miss out this little clanger I found when looking for a version of the quote with your preferred grammar:
"It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the night outstrip the day, each just swims along in its own orbit."
One word: Eclipse.
Sooooooo, yet another 'miracle' bites the dust.
NEXT!
|
|
|
|
THIS is the exact quote :
21:33 - “It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its orbit.”
learn arabic to know the exact meaning of words, not fake translation
So are you calling the Muslim, irfan_pak, and thousands of web hits on google as being wrong? Cos I'm not getting much in the way of hits on the phrase as you claim it to be. Miracle #2:
Orbits
While referring to the Sun and the Moon in the Qur'an, it is emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.
"It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (The Qur'an, 21:33)
So is irfan_pak wrong on this quote, too? It is mentioned in another verse, too, that the Sun is not static but moves in a definite orbit:
"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing." (The Qur'an, 36:38)
Because if that is a direct quote, where the hell would a 'resting place' be in an orbit? It reads, YET AGAIN, like the author sees the Sun setting on the Horizon and thinks it it actually moving around the Earth. So if common sense clearly shows the text to be implying, incorrectly, that the Sun and Moon are orbiting the Earth, where is the clear clarification that, instead, it is actually saying something else entirely? |
|
|
|
Yes you are quoting our homepage, so now we cannot do any marketing strategy at all?
In most places, it is not legal to lie in marketing. Agreed, updated. No serious affects, no personal losses etc. Our volume is small, we will get there. As has been pointed out, you only changed the lie you were promoting once you had been caught out for it. One of your trading platform's major features was that your customer's funds were totally insured. Yet you knew they weren't. The reason they were not insured is the same reason why most online cryptocurrency services don't have insurance, because they can't fucking get any. But telling potential customers that their funds will be safe with your company because your company has insurance which will cover them in the event of a hack/theft, is not just illegal, it is highly fraudulent. Even in Hong Kong. Do you know why? Because most of HK's corporate and commercial law is cut-and-paste straight from UK corporate and commercial law. Can you put down the tinnies and translate this gobbledegook into English please: It seems their not as bright to look up to see that HK was indeed registered first and the UK company is just for the office in the UK. 1. Hong Kong is XPY Limited 2. UK is Mineral International Limited Web site is trading under the UK registered name. The UK company that is just for the office in the UK is called Mineral International Limited, the name under which the exchange is trading. What does "just" mean in this instance? It means we're set up the UK company and will use it for our development and support team that we're building, while the HK company will hold all the company's assets. So who is the parent company in this arrangement? If the HK company owns all the assets (known as a 'Holding Company') and the UK company handles all the payroll and operational expenses, then the UK company must own the HK one, yes? Please think before you answer. Get it wrong and you're going to end up admitting fraud again. |
|
|
|
21:33 - “It is He Who created the Night and the Day, and the sun and the moon: all swim along, each in its orbit.”
What's the doubt?
Your honesty is the doubt. I believe the quote is actually, ""It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." Each in AN orbit. Given that the moon and the sun are both being cited, in the same sentence, as being in an orbit, which is more likely, that the author believes both to be orbiting the Earth, or that the moon orbits the Earth but the Sun orbits a point within our Galaxy? Which is more likely? If you want to cite your 'holy' book as being a miraculous source of knowledge centuries before its time, then you can only cite the text within it, not simply choose to infer from vague ramblings the basis for advanced scientific knowledge. As has been said, Muslims have contributed to mankind's knowledge throughout history, but that knowledge was not because they were Muslim, it was because they applied scientific and mathematical principals which could be objectively supported and proven, you know, exactly what 'Science' is. |
|
|
|
So you're ignoring the valid point made about your claim towards the mosque and now you want to move on to the next 'miracle' which is a bit of text which sounds like the author still believed the sun went around the earth, but you want to claim it is actually to do with the Sun's own orbit within our galaxy, even though there is no text which suggests that is what was being described.
So that is two for two successful challenges of your claimed 'miracles' so far. You keep ignoring the simple rebuttals of your weak assertions in favour of reposting the vague 'holy' text as though repeating the same massively flawed vague description is providing for a different answer than the first time you failed to make a valid point with it. Let me ask you again, where in that text about the Sun and the Moon orbiting is there anything which suggests the author meant that the Moon orbited Earth, but that the reference to the Sun described it as being on it's own orbit within our galaxy? |
|
|
|
|
So you're ignoring the valid point made about your claim towards the mosque and now you want to move on to the next 'miracle' which is a bit of text which sounds like the author still believed the sun went around the earth, but you want to claim it is actually to do with the Sun's own orbit within our galaxy, even though there is no text which suggests that is what was being described.
|
|
|
|
For me it is only a mracle, as I said only a miracle and I also love that picture! It is extremely significant for me  . Or are you just pushing your own theist 'miracles' with no intent towards actually being intellectually honest about your claims? So that's a resounding, 'yes', then? You aren't interested in actually being intellectually honest in this discussion at all. |
|
|
|
"A coining be used by the world that make a coin" It's so beautiful . . . words . . . no . . . words . . . they should have sent a poet. I vote we make that the cryptocurrency equivalent of the 'All your base . . .' meme. It is Gawesome, indeed. Praise GAWD! |
|
|
|
Miracle #2:
Orbits
While referring to the Sun and the Moon in the Qur'an, it is emphasized that each moves in a definite orbit.
"It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They swim along, each in an orbit." (The Qur'an, 21:33)
It is mentioned in another verse, too, that the Sun is not static but moves in a definite orbit:
"And the sun runs to its resting place. That is the decree of the Almighty, the All-Knowing." (The Qur'an, 36:38) So which part of that quote implies that the planets of our Solar System orbit the Sun? Reads to me like a geocentric perspective. By the way, still waiting on someone to acknowledge and concede that claims towards the 'miracle' of the mosque still standing after the tsunami are not sound. Are you guys even interested and open enough to be willing to recognise when you are reasoning incorrectly? Maybe ....  Let's see now, hmm, solid stone building remains while the rickety shacks around it were washed away. 'Tis truly miraculous, no? :epicrolleyes: I despise willful ignorance and this thread is already chock full of it before we've even got to the second page. The OP and friends are not interested in actually proving their case, they've already been conditioned to believe without question. Ahh yeah, I remember that one, that's from the Tsunami isn't it? Like you say cryptodevil they actually took a look at the building and the reason it was left standing was because it had been really well constructed, rather ironic really considering that religious building was likely taking money from all the people around it who could have used that to build some real houses.
there we go, the speculation i was waiting for .. there were lots of concrete buildings, not talking about houses. buildings that were present before the tsunami and not after it. if you do some research you might find your answers Right so you believe that in a dirt-poor place like that there were buildings other than the mosque which were built as well as the mosque? Still waiting on the Muslims to explain why multiple links to pictures of damaged concrete buildings in different countries, from different tsunamis, qualify as a valid rebuttal. You *do* know that the only possible comparison you can make about this sturdy building surviving has to be based on an equally sturdy building nearby which was subjected to the same tidal forces as the Mosque, yet were destroyed, in order to make anything like a reasonable assertions towards the Mosque being somehow 'special', you know, in a 'woo' way. Or are you just pushing your own theist 'miracles' with no intent towards actually being intellectually honest about your claims? |
|
|
|
|
Gizmodo were part of Josh/GAW plans from the start of the whole debacle. This smacks of a 'bagholder' article.
She also claims to have approached Rishabh, but happens to also mis-spell his name without the 'h' at the end, which would suggest the person who complained about being misrepresented in the emails is not likely to actually be *the* Rishabh who paid Garza millions of dollars by bank transfer, on the promise of numerous assurances about what great things were coming for XPY.
|
|
|
|
|
^^^ How about if KnC first prove they are actually capable of delivering on the promises they make at the time of sale?
|
|
|
|
Maybe .... Let's see now, hmm, solid stone building remains while the rickety shacks around it were washed away. 'Tis truly miraculous, no? :epicrolleyes: I despise willful ignorance and this thread is already chock full of it before we've even got to the second page. The OP and friends are not interested in actually proving their case, they've already been conditioned to believe without question. Ahh yeah, I remember that one, that's from the Tsunami isn't it? Like you say cryptodevil they actually took a look at the building and the reason it was left standing was because it had been really well constructed, rather ironic really considering that religious building was likely taking money from all the people around it who could have used that to build some real houses.
there we go, the speculation i was waiting for .. there were lots of concrete buildings, not talking about houses. buildings that were present before the tsunami and not after it. if you do some research you might find your answers Right so you believe that in a dirt-poor place like that there were buildings other than the mosque which were built as well as the mosque? Still waiting on the Muslims to explain why multiple links to pictures of damaged concrete buildings in different countries, from different tsunamis, qualify as a valid rebuttal. You *do* know that the only possible comparison you can make about this sturdy building surviving has to be based on an equally sturdy building nearby which was subjected to the same tidal forces as the Mosque, yet were destroyed, in order to make anything like a reasonable assertions towards the Mosque being somehow 'special', you know, in a 'woo' way. |
|
|
|
Sounds like he is setting up to 'cop a plea' where however it works with the SEC get fined and penalized without admitting guilt or having done anything wrong or whatever the legal routing for that is. So he is apologizing to his flock in advance when the news breaks he's been fined and restricted in his 'business' activities .... but of course never intending to defraud anyone...  How's that paypal buying paycoin story working for you now rishab,. Absolutely, many people in this thread already posted long ago that Homero Joshua Garza was likely to try and 'exit' the scam by way of claiming he was genuinely trying to make things work. Good point about Rishabh, by the way. While those who earn money through dubious means may be inclined to be of the, "easy come, easy go" mentality, they are also more likely to have a much lower bar towards acts of retribution against those who have crossed them. The Garza clan most definitely set Rishabh up like a sucker, according to those leaked emails. |
|
|
|
Actually you should, explain what images of various concrete buildings in different places and from different tsunamis actually has to do with you believing you have successfully delivered a rebuttal of the point I made. |
|
|
|
Ahh yeah, I remember that one, that's from the Tsunami isn't it? Like you say cryptodevil they actually took a look at the building and the reason it was left standing was because it had been really well constructed, rather ironic really considering that religious building was likely taking money from all the people around it who could have used that to build some real houses.
there we go, the speculation i was waiting for .. there were lots of concrete buildings, not talking about houses. buildings that were present before the tsunami and not after it. if you do some research you might find your answers Right so you believe that in a dirt-poor place like that there were buildings other than the mosque which were built as well as the mosque? |
|
|
|
Maybe .... Let's see now, hmm, solid stone building remains while the rickety shacks around it were washed away. 'Tis truly miraculous, no? :epicrolleyes: I despise willful ignorance and this thread is already chock full of it before we've even got to the second page. The OP and friends are not interested in actually proving their case, they've already been conditioned to believe without question. |
|
|
|
|
Simplest route to upgrade the windows wallet:
Rename the old main Bitstar wallet folder to something else
Enter %appdata% in the run box on the start menu
Rename the old Bitstar folder you find there to something else
Go into that folder and copy the wallet.dat to the clipboard
Download and Run the windows installer for the new Bitstar wallet
Download the 'faststart' RAR file
Run the Bitstar wallet once and then exit
Paste the wallet.dat into the %appdata% new Bitstar folder, replacing the empty one put there by the first load of the new wallet.
Extract the contents of the RAR file to the new Bitstar folder that you find in the %appdata% folder
Run the Bitstar wallet once more and you should see it indexing and showing your correct wallet contents
|
|
|
|
Of course, it occurs to me that Homero's reply is actually referring to the claim in the OP saying there would be a "Seized by . . ." page in place as a result of being under investigation by the SEC and DoJ. So, hey, he's telling the truth this time! Trouble is, he is doing so only by wording it in such a way as his flock think he's talking about the CCN article contents.  |
|
|
|
You have no rights to offend other people.
Actually, you are wrong. You have no right to demand to never be offended. Nobody has the moral right to demand to never be offended. Do you know what happens in societies where there is legislation like you propose, where one actually doesn't have the right to offend others? Bad things. Very bad things happen in societies like that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
