Qur'anic desciption of the Ocean

[Trumble]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

The verse is so explicit there is no room for alternate interpretations. WAVES ABOVE WHICH ARE WAVES, ABOVE WHICH ARE CLOUDS. So the waves are above one another in the same manner that the clouds are above the waves - seperated at different altitudes, not just "a lot of waves" as Pygoscelis opined since that conflicts with how the clouds are mentioned in the same manner.

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on that. No only do I believe there are other, and far more plausible, interpretations, I believe that fact is obvious to anyone addressing the issue who hasn't already made their mind up. For example, you fail to address my fairly casual suggestion of undersea currents, which fits that description just as well. Clouds, above waves, above currents. You are hardly in a position to insist that 'currents' cannot be substituted for 'waves' as you yourself have claimed that what Mohammed most likely knew about things nautical could be written on the back of a matchbox. Not to mention that, as we have already accepted that sun = lamp is a metaphor, this too could be a metaphor for anything. Insistence on the precise wording just won't work.

I'm afraid you're wrong here as well.

The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200 meters and below. At this depth, there is almost no light (see figure 15). Below a depth of 1000 meters there is no light at all.1 Human beings are not able to dive more than forty meters without the aid of submarines or special equipment. Human beings cannot survive unaided in the deep dark part of the oceans, such as at a depth of 200 meters.​

So the varying degrees of darkness, as you put it, would be unknown to any diver who did not take special equipment to enable them to go to 200 meters below the surface.

No, I'm not wrong. They would most certainly NOT be unknown. Varying degrees of darkness are known to any shallow depth scuba-diver or free-diver; that doesn't mean it is dark at shallower depths, but it is noticeably darker (certainly darker enough to infer the deeper you go the darker it gets), particularly if the water is less than crystal clear. Try snorkling off Plymouth sometime!

That is exactly what I am saying. The simplest way to approach the verse is to take it exactly as it is. Waves above which are waves. The fact that the verse proves there are waves below the surface is inescapable.

See my response above.

Furthermore, he wasn't living in some seaport where he would hear about ocean phenomena all the time, he was living in the arabian desert. And your argument about Makkah being a center of trade is a null point since the caravans would go to Syria in the summer and Yemen in the winter.

Your point is? Both have coastlines. Yemen has quite a large one. Are you telling me they didn't trade by sea or catch fish?

The probability that he came across a sailor who just happened to decide to provide a random lecture about subsurface ocean phenomena, which the Prophet just happened to recall some 15 years later in Madinah when this surah was revealed, is infinitesimal.

I disagree. He wouldn't bump into such people every day certainly, but 'infinitesimal'? No way. And that assumes, of course, that the Qur'an had no input from other people - an assumption an atheist wouldn't make.

I think you may be missing the original point of the thread, which was whether this stuff would convince atheists. Imagine yourself an atheist for a second and reflect on the two options presented. Option one. Mohammed, living in a trading town, at some time, bumped into a sailor or two and had a long chin-wag with them in a bored moment, or.. option 2. what knowledge he had was given him by an Angel who was an intermediary from a supreme being, such knowledge containing a multitude of scientific insight unknown at the time. Assuming you didn't believe in God already, i.e were you an atheist, which would you find the most probable? Me too. It's a matter of faith, not stretched and dubious 'proofs'.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

Greetings Trumble,

I'm afraid we will have to disagree on that. No only do I believe there are other, and far more plausible, interpretations, I believe that fact is obvious to anyone addressing the issue who hasn't already made their mind up.

Well its amusing since opponents usually criticise the far-fetched or stretched interpretation of the verses, whereas here I am suggesting taking the verse as it is while you want to replace one word with another and contrive imaginative alternative interpretations:

For example, you fail to address my fairly casual suggestion of undersea currents, which fits that description just as well. Clouds, above waves, above currents.

But the problem is it doesn't say waves above currents. It says WAVES ABOVE WAVES. And I've shown why other interpretations like Pygoscelis's conflict with the passage as it references the clouds - an argument you seem to have conceded. Secondly, I don't see how your modifications to the verse - even if they were valid - change the argument either. Which currents are you referring to? In the first hundred meters, most of the currents are just the wind-driven surface currents which take an imaginative mind to classify as "waves above waves", and they don't cause changes in the level of light that close to the surface. This page talks about other ocean currents:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8q.html

You are hardly in a position to insist that 'currents' cannot be substituted for 'waves' as you yourself have claimed that what Mohammed most likely knew about things nautical could be written on the back of a matchbox.

This is clearly fallacious reasoning. Such a justification is based on an assumption that the Qur'an was his own composition and since he didn't know what he was talking about, he didn't really mean to say what he said, therefore we can substitute the wording for another wording which does not correlate with science, therefore the verse does not correlate with science. Petitio Principii!!

this too could be a metaphor for anything

It is a metaphor, in that it is an analogy. It is a metaphor for the deeds of the disbelievers but it does not compare them to some mythical or fictitious concept. It compares their deeds to a real phenomena - that of internal waves in the ocean and the varying degrees of darkness associated with them. If you alter the wording of the verse you render its analogy incoherent. The proof for this is that every classical tafsir has always looked at these verses the same way - they describe the surface waves and deep below them waves beneath the surface and far above them the clouds.

No, I'm not wrong. They would most certainly NOT be unknown. Varying degrees of darkness are known to any shallow depth scuba-diver or free-diver; that doesn't mean it is dark at shallower depths, but it is noticeably darker (certainly darker enough to infer the deeper you go the darker it gets), particularly if the water is less than crystal clear.

You wouldn't recognize varying degrees of darkness you would just see that the cloudy water appears opaque. You are in no way able to infer that there are varying degrees of darkness associated with altitude or internal waves. And people in seventh century arabia did not posses snorkels either! If I was living back then, I would have assumed the apparent lack of translucency to be due to dirty water.

Your point is? Both have coastlines. Yemen has quite a large one. Are you telling me they didn't trade by sea or catch fish?

My point is that there was no significant travelling to sea ports or other localities where discussion about ocean phenomena would be prevalent. And the Prophet pbuh never went to Yemen himself. And He lived as a shepherd and even after marriage to Khadija he would stay secluded from the society the majority of the time.

I disagree. He wouldn't bump into such people every day certainly, but 'infinitesimal'? No way. And that assumes, of course, that the Qur'an had no input from other people - an assumption an atheist wouldn't make.

Btw, it should have been 30yrs instead of 15. So if he did happen to meet someone familiar with ocean phenomena (which STILL would not comprise internal waves and varying levels of darkness) and this person did happen to start describing phenomena that were discovered in the 19th century, the Prophet would have to recall such an insignificant conversation three decades later after having endured so much persecution and only for the sake of making an analogy??? Sorry, but I'm sticking with infinitesimal.

And input from who? That's what we're discussing. Which people did he encounter who would have told him about phenomena that were only realized in the 19th century? The only one I can think of is Gabriel.

It's a matter of faith, not stretched and dubious 'proofs'.

I didn't call this singular example a proof, but taken together with everything we know about Islam, the Qur'an and the Prophet pbuh, it is one page in the massive volumes of inescapable evidence.

Regards

 

[Trumble]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

Well its amusing since opponents usually criticise the far-fetched or stretched interpretation of the verses, whereas here I am suggesting taking the verse as it is while you want to replace one word with another and contrive imaginative alternative interpretations

Again you choose to completely miss the point, which is how convincing all this might be to an atheist. It is not the alternative interpretation which is 'imaginative', it is yours!

But the problem is it doesn't say waves above currents. It says WAVES ABOVE WAVES.

I have already explained why that is a mute point. Do you conceded that the sun is in fact a lamp? As a matter of interest did the Arabic of the time have words for both 'wave' and 'current' anyway? If it did have a word for 'current' you have answered your own next question.

Secondly, I don't see how your modifications to the verse - even if they were valid - change the argument either. Which currents are you referring to?

Erm, ever heard of tides?

This is clearly fallacious reasoning. Such a justification is based on an assumption that the Qur'an was his own composition and since he didn't know what he was talking about, he didn't really mean to say what he said, therefore we can substitute the wording for another wording which does not correlate with science, therefore the verse does not correlate with science. Petitio Principii!!

It is only a Petitio Principii if you assume that the original wording does correlate with science and was intended to correlate with science - which I do not. The assumption as to authorship is one that a non-believer would make, or at least would consider. Therefore the substitution is quite plausible.. and the overall result is a more plausible one that that Mohammed received scientific knowledge from a divinity.. unless you already believe such a divinity exists. The same is true whether the substitution is made or not... in both cases the non-God explanation will be the least unlikely to our atheist.

You are in no way able to infer that there are varying degrees of darkness associated with altitude or internal waves. And people in seventh century arabia did not posses snorkels either!

The first part is just not true with regard to easily reachable depths. The change is indeed due to 'cloudy water'. The more floating matter there is in the water above you the less light reaches you, i.e it gets darker the deeper you go even at depths not requiring snorkels or submarines. The fact that that effect has nothing to do with internal waves (it is obviously associated with depth) is irrelevant.. unless of course you assume that is what the verse refers to!

The second part obviously is true, but a snorkel is not required.

My point is that there was no significant travelling to sea ports or other localities where discussion about ocean phenomena would be prevalent. And the Prophet pbuh never went to Yemen himself. And He lived as a shepherd and even after marriage to Khadija he would stay secluded from the society the majority of the time.

You still miss that point as well. However unlikely it may have been it is certainly concievable. Simple application of Occam's Razor therefore suggests a far more plausible explanation than conjouring up a divinity. Unless, of course, you already believe that divinity exists. There is a common theme here, don't you think?

And input from who? That's what we're discussing. Which people did he encounter who would have told him about phenomena that were only realized in the 19th century? The only one I can think of is Gabriel.

A fair point only IF you accept anyone told him about, or that the Qur'an refers to, "phenomena that were only realized in the 19th century". You may have gathered by now I do not.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

I can't believe you people are still trying to claim that "waves upon waves" and "layers of darkness" make some precise scientific prediction unknown to the people of the time.

"Layers of Darkness" could simply mean it gets darker the deeper you go (the obvious and litteral view) or maybe it means that evil lurks at the depths and the deeper you go the darker it gets spiritually. It could mean any number of things if you decide to interpret it that way.

My post above about the lamp maybe being a real lamp hidden in the sun that we just haven't discovered yet was only made half in jest.

Given the way you are arguing here I have NO DOUBT that if by some amazing quirk of fate we found a giant lamp inside the sun you'd be claiming to have known it was there all along. Given how magical modern science would appear to the people of Mohammed's time the comparison of wave upon wave being literal and the lamp being literal is not that far apart.

It truly shows Trumble's point that this will not convince anybody who hasn't already decided to be convinced. You are actually convinced by this, which I as a non-believer find very hard to believe.

 

[Trumble]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

It truly shows Trumble's point that this will not convince anybody who hasn't already decided to be convinced. You are actually convinced by this, which I as a non-believer find very hard to believe.

I find it very easy to believe our muslim friends believe, if that makes sense.

It just depends on your starting assumptions, specifically whether you believe God exists as muslims percieve Him or not, and whether the Qur'an is His Word or not. If I was a muslim I would believe these 'proofs' in just the same way; from that reference point there is no real choice. Indeed, if I can imagine myself as a Christian or Jew, with the same belief in what is, after all, the same God, I might well find such 'proofs' a very good reason to convert to Islam.

It's not really a case of "deciding to be convinced". If you believe and have faith that option isn't really open.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

Hi Trumble,

Again you choose to completely miss the point, which is how convincing all this might be to an atheist. It is not the alternative interpretation which is 'imaginative', it is yours!

Yet you have continually failed to demonstrate that. You have hopped from one explanation to another, trying to find anything that could explain away the obvious. While I insist on going exactly with what the verse says you keep trying to find other ways to fiddle with the meaning, which is clearly a lost case here since "waves above which are waves, above which are clouds" leaves little to the imagination. You intially supported Pygoscelis's conjecture that it just meant 'a lot of waves' despite the blatant incoherence of such a view in light of the verse's context. So then you drop this point and suggest well maybe the verse doesn't mean to say what it says! In making such a claim you have denied the argument before having entertained it. Allow me to illustrate with an example. If a man living 2000 years ago said that the air we breathe comes out of many trees, that statement contains explicit scientific insight. It is not a fair argument to say, "Well, since the guy was living so long ago he couldn't have known about oxygen and cellular respiration, therefore he didn't mean what he said, therfore we can change his words and say that he really meant to say, 'stuff we consume comes from plants' because we eat a lot of fruits."

Or if the same person said that the moon pulls on the water to generate tides, and you say, "Well by pull he really means poetically that you can see the reflection of the moon dancing on the waves as though it is pulling at them." I'm sure you can probably see many similar examples of such fallacious reasoning.

I have already explained why that is a mute [moot?] point. Do you conceded that the sun is in fact a lamp?

Here's the problem with your analogy - you're trying to dispute over the meaning of one word - 'waves' to mean something other than waves, while your giving me the example of a comparison between the function of the sun and that of a lamp. A more accurate comparison here would be to compare metaphor to metaphor: the sun to the lamp, versus the layers of darkness to the disbeliever.

As a matter of interest did the Arabic of the time have words for both 'wave' and 'current' anyway? If it did have a word for 'current' you have answered your own next question.

Note that when you use the word 'current' you actually intend a specific phenomena which you have clarified later in this post to be a type of tidal flow. Yes, there would be words like the 'sayl' which the Qur'an uses to describe the miraculous flood waters that overwhelmed the people of Saba. It does little for your argument however, since we still stuck with the inescapable conclusion that the Qur'an states that there are ocean waves existing at different altitudes. And their connection to the varying degree of darkness beneath the ocean is also mentioned.

Erm, ever heard of tides?

I have, but you failed to mention that, and as I said in my last post there are a host of distinct ocean phenomena described as currents. But mroe importantly, this actually negates your own argument since substituting such a meaning into the verse renders the passage incoherent along with its metaphor for the disbelievers! The periodic tidal pulls are in no way like layers of darkness one above the other nor can they be described as waves above which are waves above which are clouds. Your attempts are becoming increasingly frantic here.

It is only a Petitio Principii if you assume that the original wording does correlate with science and was intended to correlate with science - which I do not.

Then we should be arguing about whether the original wording does correlate with science or not, not what alternative words we can plug into the verse to change its meaning. So far I have not seen a single argument from you against the correlation between the original wording and science. All your arugments stem on the basis of alternative wordings.

The same is true whether the substitution is made or not... in both cases the non-God explanation will be the least unlikely to our atheist.

Not entirely true. I know many atheists for whom such verses have been a factor in their acknowledgement of the veracity of Islam, in addition to their acceptance of its message. Two ex-atheists on this very forum come to mind - br. _salam_ and br. steve. If one has an open mind they will see that quite clearly there are indeed passages in the Qur'an such as this one that contain an inescapable level of scientific insight which cannot be attributed to a human being living in the desert 1400 years.

The change is indeed due to 'cloudy water'.

But the verse connects it to waves! And it points out the varying degrees of light deeper in the ocean until the point where there is no light and one cannot see their hand in front of their face.

The second part obviously is true, but a snorkel is not required.

Most people would not perform an analysis of the visibility below the surface in the arabian sea without goggles or some eyewear.

You still miss that point as well. However unlikely it may have been it is certainly concievable.

Is that your best response? You can in no way counter my historical arguments on its infinitesimal probability? You take a stand on this issue that you would never take on any other issue in your life.

Simple application of Occam's Razor therefore suggests a far more plausible explanation than conjouring up a divinity.

Actually there is greater parsimony in accepting a divinity when one looks at the big picture because billions of cases like this are transformed from infinitesimal probabilities into plausible scenarios.

A fair point only IF you accept anyone told him about, or that the Qur'an refers to, "phenomena that were only realized in the 19th century". You may have gathered by now I do not.

I have, though I am amazed by the incoherence and deficiencies in your arguments.

Regards

 

[Trumble]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

Yet you have continually failed to demonstrate that.

Let's try again.

"points out the varying degrees of light deeper in the ocean until the point where there is no light and one cannot see their hand in front of their face."

No, it doesn't. All it says is "darknesses, one above another". One of which is clouds, not ocean. There is nothing about graduation of that darkness, simply that clouds, waves and waves are 'darknesses'. As the whole thing is an analogy to the state of mind of an unbeliever, there is nothing suggesting that there is any more than one degree of 'darkness' through which he cannot see even if (and with the analogy, who knows?) there are three seperate 'darknesses' he can't see through - different levels of spiritual attainment or understanding, perhaps? If the use of "darknesses" was intended to suggest different levels of darkness at varying depths, shouldn't the verse have read "darknesses, one below another"? But it doesn't. Increasing darkness with depth is just an assumption, not in the text but on the part of the reader,... one that someone who didn't already know it got darker with depth couldn't make.

Maybe another interpretation will finally show you what I mean.

Or (the unbelievers’ state) is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it.... (Quran, 24:40)

The first sentence just equates the obviously undesirable state of unbelief to darkness, in this case that of the deep sea. There is no mystery; people at the time and through all of recorded history before and since believed the ocean depths to be places of darkness and mystery, not broad daylight. All you have to do is stand on the deck of a ship, throw in a rock and watch it sink and slowly disappear into, yup, darkness. However, the next part is a miracle! The unbeliever's state of mind is obviously a function of his brain. That state of mind is covered by waves, more waves and clouds. Clearly this refers to the three types or 'layers' of brainwaves, beta, alpha and theta!! How could a man 14 hundred years ago know anything about brainwaves!! This is proof the Qur'an came from God!

I will grant that, while Mohammed may well have met a sailor or fisherman, the chances of him having met a neuro-scientist are indeed 'infinitesimal', so perhaps that equally plausible (yes, it really is) interpretation actually suits your need better?

This, and any other verse used in this context. can be interpreted in any of a dozen ways. At most the reference to two layers of waves is a mildly interesting co-incidence, but that is all... to read any more into it simply isn't justified unless you believe in the divine origin of the Qur'an already. I've made that as clear as I can I think, we'll just have to see how many atheists with a little scientific knowledge this lecture manages to convert. I suspect not many. What you, from your own perspective, see as convincing from outside of that perspective simply is not remotely convincing.

You can in no way counter my historical arguments on its infinitesimal probability?

I already have. Mohammed was a trader, lived in a trading centre, would have met traders (from countries with coastlines) and from what I can see certainly seems to have made journeys to Syria (c. 583). To me that simply blows 'infinitesimal' away, leaving at best 'improbable'. If you insist on 'infinitesimal' when it clearly (to me) was nothing of the sort we will have to agree to differ. There is no sensible way of assessing the actual probability.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

If you insist on 'infinitesimal' when it clearly (to me) was nothing of the sort we will have to agree to differ. There is no sensible way of assessing the actual probability.

He says infinitesimal (I have no idea how to spell that word properly), you say unlikely, I say down right bound to happen. The guy lived in one of the major hubs of society in his time. He was BOUND to meet some fishermen.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

Let's try again.

Sure, but let's be consistent...

"points out the varying degrees of light deeper in the ocean until the point where there is no light and one cannot see their hand in front of their face."

No, it doesn't.

Something you should have no problem accepting:

"Layers of darkness, one above the other". I assume that means layers of varying degrees of darkness. Or, it gets darker the deeper you go. Any free-diver could tell you that.
​

YOUR words, NOT MINE! I specifically used the phrases that you had initially proposed upon first impression of the verse.

If the use of "darknesses" was intended to suggest different levels of darkness at varying depths, shouldn't the verse have read "darknesses, one below another"?

This is a puerile objection. It doesn't matter whether you count up or count down. From the perspective of one at the bottom (i.e. the disbeliever) they are buried under layers of darkness one above the other.

The first sentence just equates the obviously undesirable state of unbelief to darkness, in this case that of the deep sea. There is no mystery; people at the time and through all of recorded history before and since believed the ocean depths to be places of darkness and mystery, not broad daylight. All you have to do is stand on the deck of a ship, throw in a rock and watch it sink and slowly disappear into, yup, darkness.

You ignore the key phrases here. Waves, above which are waves. Layers of darkness, one above the other. I've already pointed out that the darkness is found at a depth of 200 meters. Your examples of snorkeling, throwing rocks etc. are all failing to touch upon what the verse actually talks about. It's not the fact that the ocean is dark. Its the fact that the internal waves at different altitidudes have been described as layers of darkness, which correlates exactly with their refractive nature.

However, the next part is a miracle! The unbeliever's state of mind is obviously a function of his brain. That state of mind is covered by waves, more waves and clouds. Clearly this refers to the three types or 'layers' of brainwaves, beta, alpha and theta!! How could a man 14 hundred years ago know anything about brainwaves!! This is proof the Qur'an came from God!

The difference here is that I'm talking about what the wording of the verse actually says whereas you are extrapolating the verse to draw other comparisons which are not necessitated by the text.

At most the reference to two layers of waves is a mildly interesting co-incidence, but that is all...

A coincidence??? A coincidence with WHAT?? The mention of the layers with waves was just as intentional as its connection with darkness and symbolic representation of the state of the disbelievers.

What you, from your own perspective, see as convincing from outside of that perspective simply is not remotely convincing.

I don't present this verse as some ultimate proof of the Qur'an's truth. My arguments on the validity of Islam almost always examine the Islamic message itself and the developments in the life of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh. However, I have introduced this verse here to counter the notion that all scientific correlations with Qur'anic verses are phony and lacking in objectivity. In my opinion, that may be true for some but clearly not all of them.

I already have. Mohammed was a trader

Actually he was a shepherd. He worked on one merchant journey for Khadija prior to his marriage during a time when his family was financially in need.

lived in a trading centre

Makkah was a religious center more than anything. As a shepherd he spent the vast majority of his time out in open desert contemplating God, and after his marriage he would isolate himself in the cave of Hira.

would have met traders (from countries with coastlines) and from what I can see certainly seems to have made journeys to Syria (c. 583).

ONE journey to Syria prior to his marriage. if you take this line of argument then this would entail that he recalled a specific detail from a casual conversation on oceanic phenomena, some 30 years later in Madinah after his prophethood and having gone through so many tribulations - only for the purpose of mentioning in a short metaphor!

Regards

 

[lolwatever]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

^ lol @ bro ansar, nice one mashalah .... would hav been useful if ppl learnt arabic before they started goin off making their own interpreations... or atleast study the syntax of what they're trying to accuse as "merely waves crashing on each other"

 

[lolwatever]

Re: Atheists must watch this video from 3:42 time of this video

I can't believe you people are still trying to claim that "waves upon waves" and "layers of darkness" make some precise scientific prediction unknown to the people of the time.

"Layers of Darkness" could simply mean it gets darker the deeper you go (the obvious and litteral view) or maybe it means that evil lurks at the depths and the deeper you go the darker it gets spiritually. It could mean any number of things if you decide to interpret it that way.

My post above about the lamp maybe being a real lamp hidden in the sun that we just haven't discovered yet was only made half in jest.

Given the way you are arguing here I have NO DOUBT that if by some amazing quirk of fate we found a giant lamp inside the sun you'd be claiming to have known it was there all along. Given how magical modern science would appear to the people of Mohammed's time the comparison of wave upon wave being literal and the lamp being literal is not that far apart.

It truly shows Trumble's point that this will not convince anybody who hasn't already decided to be convinced. You are actually convinced by this, which I as a non-believer find very hard to believe.

Pygo no offense but i think trying to handle these issues is a bit above your level at the moment.... first you need to get your head aroudn the concept of god and what god before trying to explain the quran to us.

I can't believe you people are still trying to claim that "waves upon waves" and "layers of darkness" make some precise scientific prediction unknown to the people of the time.

did you even read ansars posts? and to be quite honest... looks like the only way you'll undersatand is if you take a courase in arabic and then try proving to us that the pharse isn't merely referring to waves thrashign around, the structure of teh sentence clearly is being specific to the idea referred to by ansar.

"Layers of Darkness" could simply mean it gets darker the deeper you go (the obvious and litteral view) or maybe it means that evil lurks at the depths and the deeper you go the darker it gets spiritually. It could mean any number of things if you decide to interpret it that way.

The nature of quran is that its designed for all times and people, a simpleton would understand it in a way that befits his frame of mind but doesnt go against the point of the verse... and a scientist would understand it differently in a way that also doesnt contradict the point of the verse. If you read the verse that follows Allah is definately referring to his power and the greatness of his creation. So its not a pointless piece of imagery.

The quran is designed for people who contemplate and not just read things and think 'oh yeh... could mean anything big deal'.

Given the way you are arguing here I have NO DOUBT that if by some amazing quirk of fate we found a giant lamp inside the sun you'd be claiming to have known it was there all along. Given how magical modern science would appear to the people of Mohammed's time the comparison of wave upon wave being literal and the lamp being literal is not that far apart.

perhaps if you read the entire verse you'd understand they're two very different verses talking about differnt things.. the verse with the lamp is clearly imagery, referring to oil as enlighting even though fire doesnt touch it... and the verse about waves is definately literal becaue its specifically talking about Allah's advanced creation.

It truly shows Trumble's point that this will not convince anybody who hasn't already decided to be convinced. You are actually convinced by this, which I as a non-believer find very hard to believe.

It wont' convince anyone who's got a mind that can't deduce or contemplate... that's for sure. It's so obvious that you're just totally missing the point, stripping phrases out of verses and totally ignoring the context they're mentioned in, not even bothering to read what the verse is on about.