In the begining God made Science
-
Peace
It is not the Quran that is at fault with science but rather science needs to catch up with the Quran So any man made theories are just man made. It does not prove anything as theries are always changing and what we take as fact today is not so tomorrow. So when stating science, know that it is not fixed and by no means is it law. Our search for knowledge goes on.
Peace
Hope
PS thanks for bringing this to our attention Rev.John and thanks for your commentary.
-
Peace
It is not the Quran that is at fault with science but rather science needs to catch up with the Quran So any man made theories are just man made. It does not prove anything as theries are always changing and what we take as fact today is not so tomorrow. So when stating science, know that it is not fixed and by no means is it law. Our search for knowledge goes on.
Peace
Hope
PS thanks for bringing this to our attention Rev.John and thanks for your commentary.
Always a pleasure. I totally agree with your comments on science. Science changes with every discovery and with each discovery it seems to be more "God related"
-
Salaam,
God is a concept of an outside force that controls the universe, not a shred of scientific evidence supports this elite based concept, it is basically the model of a sovereign system, the sovereign controls the decisions you make, in so doing controls your life, God is a personification, they will attempt with this concept to justify a human God, and have many times in the past, which requires worship, subjugation and conformity to dogma.
In contrast.
Allah is all that exists, not a controlling force, the universe is pure thought, in correct physics based on the physical results of experimentation, not conjecture and manipulations as expressed by Rev John, it is proved that every atom of creation is emanated from the inside out, instant to instant, without this constant manifestation nothing would exist. Allah is a concept completely and utterly at odds with a God concept, they share one thing in common, both are models of a creator, but are equally comparable, to a push bike, and a aircraft carrier, with the argument they are the same thing, because they both transport people.
It is impossible to make this simple distinction clear to most, as it is a pattern of thought they can not comprehend, dismissal is the technique of the Christian and Jew, as they worship a God afar. However if you wish to be a Muslim, you should consider very carefully what I?m expressing, as it is the foundation of Islam, and the prerequisite to actually existing as a Muslim, There is No God. Only who is Not God.
-
Genesis 1
The Beginning
........
- No not so. If you follow science then you will know that the earth was not created in the beginning, far from it in fact. The beginning was the Big Bang around 13.7 billion years ago, The universe went through a series of extremely rapid phases lasting tiny fractions of time, immediately after the "bang" resulting in the universe becoming a quark-gluon plasma. Quarks and gluons are the basic building blocks of matter so perhaps one could say in the beginning was a big bang then quarks and gluons were created. Again a rapid series of phases where different known elementary particles form and dominate the universe arrives at the photon stage, that's the first ten seconds! This phase lasts for 380,000 years and the universe becomes cool enough for atomic nuclei, to form. The universe then cools going from a charged state to a neutral state and becoming transparent in the process as now photons can travel unimpeded. Some of these photons have been around ever since and are the background microwave radiation. After 200 million years the first stars form and in turn form small galaxies which merge and grow bigger. Just over half the age of the universe ago the Milky way came into existance and with it our solar system. A few more billion years and the earth forms roughly at two thirds the age of the universe. So first the Big Bang, then the plasma, then atoms, then there was light. So came the sun, the earth and other planets. This early earth was not in darkness, in fact it was closer to the sun and got more light than it does today although it rained down with meteorites and spewing volcanoes must have given things a different look. The earth wasn't formless either but oblate, just a bit more so than today as it span much faster. Nothing about the short days and nights in your account though. The sun wasn't expanding when it ignited but was contracting. When the ignition ocurred a vast solar wind would have blown off any early earth atmosphere making the sky all black unless looking directly in the suns direction - like on the moon. There was certainly no water on the surface at that time which was molten. It would be several hundred million years before the earth had cooled down enough to permit rain and seas to form. I don't think there's any evidence of one giant ocean ever having covered the entire planet.
Yes, the atmosphere di form over time but presumably a bit more than a day and certainly not the day after the oceans! Ah but it was life itself which changed the atmosphere and its debatable whther the early atmosphere was so bad for life, afterall that's when it started. The fumes from deepsea vents, which are probably not unlike the early atmosphere, are teaming with life so I wouldn't describe it as deadly. Where is the evidence that the surface has been entirely covered by ocean? Volcanic action an plate tectonics have been going on since the surface solidified.
Hang on! Life started in the sea long before any terrestial life which came billions of years later and therefore long after any organic contribution from comets and asteroids. As I wrote before the first stars came into existance long before the earth and indeed some of the earth is made up of the ashes of burnt out stars. So no way could they have been made to shine light on the earth. The earth is such a tiny insignificant speck in teh vastness of the universe it makes no sense to think stars are there for the sake of the earth.
No this is all mixed up. Aquatic life didn't appear because of increased oxygen levels. It was the aquatic life which changed the atmosphere by releasing oxygen, not the other way around!
Only the animlas that move along the ground came before the birds didn't they? Plus the first life to colonise the land was not animal life but plant and fungi life and a very longtime before at that!
Oh, and why isn't a day a day? This is a creation myth and has absolutely no science in it whatsoever let alone science proving the first chapter. -
Salaam Alamsultan,
you describe the conventional view very well, unlike Rev John, but you should read the overwhelming evidence against the big bang theory if you are seeking the truth, modern physics in the macro universe are dominated by Einstein, his views are almost entirely wrong, if weighed against the evidence of experimentation and observation, within both the macro and micro universe.
If you examine the scientists before Einstein they were correct, we exist within a fluidic manifold, from which our physical reality is emanated, instant by instant, I have posted information on my website and previously within this thread if you wish to understand the correct physics.
The universe is not driven by the force of gravity, which is billions and billions of times weaker than the magnetic force, it is a plasma universe driven through an open energy exchange from the underlying fluidic manifold. Consider this simple fact, if you travel twenty miles off the surface of the Earth there is absolutely no gravity, if you examine the force of gravity further you will realise there is in fact no attraction of mass, gravity has been completely miss-defined.
This is the foundation of conventional physics, they have made great efforts to hide the reality from the people, if you ask most people they have never even heard of the forth state of matter, which is plasma, interestingly this state makes up around 99.99% of all the matter in physical existence.
-
Salaam Alamsultan,
you describe the conventional view very well, unlike Rev John, but you should read the overwhelming evidence against the big bang theory if you are seeking the truth, modern physics in the macro universe are dominated by Einstein, his views are almost entirely wrong, if weighed against the evidence of experimentation and observation, within both the macro and micro universe.
If you examine the scientists before Einstein they were correct, we exist within a fluidic manifold, from which our physical reality is emanated, instant by instant, I have posted information on my website and previously within this thread if you wish to understand the correct physics.
The universe is not driven by the force of gravity, which is billions and billions of times weaker than the magnetic force, it is a plasma universe driven through an open energy exchange from the underlying fluidic manifold. Consider this simple fact, if you travel twenty miles off the surface of the Earth there is absolutely no gravity, if you examine the force of gravity further you will realise there is in fact no attraction of mass, gravity has been completely miss-defined.
This is the foundation of conventional physics, they have made great efforts to hide the reality from the people, if you ask most people they have never even heard of the forth state of matter, which is plasma, interestingly this state makes up around 99.99% of all the matter in physical existence.
Peace
You are disputing many theories here but not giving evidence of any. Where are you getting your source of evidence?
Peace
Hope
-
... Consider this simple fact, if you travel twenty miles off the surface of the Earth there is absolutely no gravity, ...
I think you might feel differently about that if you were pushed out of a spaceship at that altitude!
-
Salaam,
for a mind that wishes to believe only in truth, close investigation of science, economics, philosophy, history and literature are essential, I realise, if at this point you believe, the strange version of physics given by Rev John, or the conventional view expressed by Alamsulten, you may never have considered an evidence based view.
As for changing my mind about gravity if I was push from a spaceship, no, there is a force of attraction to the Earth close to it, but that is not an attraction of mass, this to someone who only understands superficially, may sound puzzling.
The scientific papers I have posted on my website in support of my views are not written by me, the Author is stated, if you would like to investigate these question further, I could help, but if you wish to make snide and pointless comments, then you would be a non-believer in truth, and only interested in conjecture, and for those I have better things to do with my time.
-
It is true that the electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravity. I learned this in physics last month.
Which grade are you in? I'm in 8th grade.
-
It is true that the electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravity. I learned this in physics last month. )
Well it is per unit of mass/energy but if we now gave Abdun Nur a suit of iron armour before giving him the shove at twenty miles altitude, gravity would be the force bringing him down to earth not magnetism. He would blonk down somewhere in the equitorial regions rather than breaking through the ice at the magnetic north pole - assuming his departure from earth was from the same region, as the earths rotation helps launches to that altitude.
-
Salaam Alamsiltan,
you think there is an attraction of mass? There is a force of attraction to the earth as I said, you seem to want to express stupid and pointless remarks, you have not investigated anything, simply accepted the conjecture of indoctrination, who then thinks they can make snide comments, next you'll be tell everyone the gravity of the Sun pulls the Earth around its orbit, you should investigate if they apply the force of gravity in the calculation for orbits, they do not?
I'll ask you this of your conventional physics, a simple question, explain exactly what 'charge' is, and I don't mean what charge does?
And even simpler question for conventional physics, what is energy, again not what it does?
I can ask you another question of conventional physics, if energy can not be created nor destroyed as they propagate falsely, why does the power of an earth magnet pour out energy without end, in fact it is the conversion of this endless energy source, that all electrical generators utilise to produce electricity.
Explain if the Sun is a nuclear furnace why the surface is around 6000c while the atmosphere is around 2000000c, as a nuclear reaction heats from the inside out, not the outside in?
If you have a gravity driven universe as you laughably suggest, you would need 96% more mass than is in existence, and that is only to balance the mathematic formulas that in themselves are simple abstract mathematical models.
Don?t express such rubbish as unit mass/energy without explaining why you think , if you consider the strength of gravity as 1, in comparison to the strength of the electromagnetic force which is 1036, and the really stupid notion that a suit of armour would increase my attraction when there would be no atmosphere, and without an atmosphere forming resistance upon the surface area, the force of electromagnetic attraction, or gravity as you call it, would have no greater effect on a block of lead or a block of wood, as for acceleration of a falling object, after 10 seconds the air's resistance force equals gravity's effects and that's when your acceleration becomes zero. You have reached the speed limit,it is again you complete lack of knowledge of the force you think so powerful.
Explain this question, if I was stood at the foot of a vast mountain, why does its mass not attract me at all, why do I not get pulled sideways towards the enormous mass?
I could continue but you will not answer the question anyway, so I?ll end here.