You do realize, I hope, that you are talking about a religion that promotes using your mouth to spread the word as necessary; while it rather considers using the mind as optional if not totally unnecessary...

"You didn't understand my point."

I am not surprised, considering I made no effort to address your point. I made a general statement about religion, period.

"I am not talking about the mode of transmission of the message."

I did, though it was more an alliteration. The "m" in mind, is a better match to the "m" in mouth, than hand or fingers. So...

"Say, for example the Quran says "And the mountains have been created as pegs on earth to keep it from shaking." This is a message that has reached us through various modes of transmission (oral and written)."

Yes, it reaches us from multiple mediums, as all information does.

"But how do we understand it? That's where we apply reason."

Indeed, the Ad Hoc variety, most usually.

"Today, the scholars say that the idea of mountains standing as pegs is close to the theory of Isostasy in geology."

Isostasy does not actually have anything to do with preventing earthquakes, they will happen even more frequently in Isostasy, as the quakes are even more necessary to keep equilibrium. In other words, quakes will happen even without movement then, as a means of equalizing geological pressure. Isostasy is simply about tectonic shift, not quakes.

"Hope its clear now."

Indeed.

"It looks like you never read my initial post on the subject."

Nope.

"My intent here is NOT to prove that Quran has scientific facts in it."

Then perhaps you shouldn't bring up an example of a scientific fact that was supposedly squeezed out of the Qur'an?

"My objective was only to show that scholars use reason to interpret the Quran."

Indeed, Ad Hoc reasoning, like I said. It is very interesting that they had to wait around for Clarence Dutton to "discover" this information. It is almost like they are reading shit into it that wasn't actually there, eh?

"May be they are wrong, may be they are right. In my initial post I was trying to demonstrate why it is UNNECESSARY to find scientific explanations for scriptural passages."

Good. Religious text are NOT science books, and treating them as such is simply ridiculous as all hell...

"As my purpose is NOT to try and match quran and scientific discoveries, I will not invent any time on answering your Isostasy point. But if you insist, i can show to you how the scholars derive isostasy from quran."

I am pretty sure I already know how they did it, as it is the same way Christians read all kinds of stuff into their Bible, so do not worry about investing your time in confirming my expectations.