The Quran on the Origin of the Universe

elwill said:

sorry , but i ignored your question because it seems to me silly question?
how do you think scientist discover the origin of our universe ?
whatever

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3072121.stm


Project leader Loretta Dunne added: "The origin of cosmic dust is, in fact, the basic question of the origin of our planet and others.

"Effectively, we live on a very large collection of cosmic dust grains and yet, until now, we have not been sure where cosmic dust is made." Cosmic dust consists of tiny particles of solid material floating around in the space between the stars, but unlike house dust, it more closely resembles cigarette smoke and blocks out half of the light given off by stars and galaxies.

"Now studies have shown that there is dust right at the edge of the Universe in the earliest stars and galaxies; we realise that we are ignorant of even its basic origin."

see , scientist say we are ignorant of even its bisic origin
it's very clear that they know nothing befor this dust (smoke)

Click to expand...

Very first sentence of the article:
"n the latest issue of the science journal Nature, they explain how they have found that some supernovae, or exploding stars, belch out huge quantities of this dust."

That is why, in the passage you quoted, Loretta also gives the statement "untill now" in what she says.

The article states that we do not know the precise origin of this dust (not smoke, I see you have problems with the english language but the sentence "more like cigarette smoke" does not mean it is smoke, but that it resembles it). We do not need to know that to know the first stages of the universe however, since in those first stages this dust does not exist. The only thing that existed than were hydrogen and helium, which form starts. Only after these elements fused in those stars and those stars exploded, could this cosmic dust be a part of the universe.

So again, no, the article really does not deal with the origin of the universe.

elwill said:

oooh , good speak
then . more like cigarette smoke dosn't mean it's smoke !!!!
no , it dosnt mean smoke from cigarette
so what do you think scientist uses specifically this expression as quran.

Click to expand...

Because it is a good descriptor. Being able to describe something well with a word doesn't mean it is the same.

Remember that the quran verse you cited made two claims. First, that the heaven was smoke, not that it looked like it. Second, according to you that this smoke stage was at the origin of the universe. Space dust is seen with the first solar systems we can observe, which differs from being present at the beginning of the universe.

"Stardust", which formed our Solar System, was formed from a nebula, which collapsed and the material from said nebula was what formed things.

This was not formed during the beginning of the universe — this nebula was the end result of a star. Stars didn't form at the beginning of the universe either. Try, several million years afterwards. The initial origin of the universe did not involve "smoke" or "fire" or any of that sort of stuff. In fact, in order for fires to burn you sort of need.. oxygen, an element that didn't exist until after stars did, because it was too heavy to form in almost any other circumstances save supernovae explosions.

elwill said:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030717090947.htm

Unlike household dust, cosmic 'dust' actually consists of tiny solid grains (mostly carbon and silicates) floating around in interstellar space, with similar sizes to the particles in cigarette smoke. The presence of dust grains around young stars helps them to form and they are also the building blocks of planets.
Dr. Loretta Dunne from Cardiff University, who led the research, says "Effectively, we live on a very large collection of cosmic dust grains! The question of the origin of cosmic dust is in fact that of the origin of our planet and others."

Click to expand...

But those aren't what the universe came from; you're shifting your goalposts here. You said that the universe originated from smoke; it did not originate from that 'cosmic dust'.

elwill said:

let us argue with honest and fair , take in your consederatin that quran revealed 1400 years ago.

firstly , you wanna to say that scientist not sure yet if it was smoke, but it's the same as smoke
so quran is sure that it's smoke , so there's no contradicts here

Click to expand...

Incorrect. In the article they said it more like cigarette smoke. Do you now also think it was cigarette smoke. You're being dishonest and ambiguous in the use of your wording here. Nowhere have they said it is smoke, rather they talk of the behavior of the substance in the article (how light goes through it). The gist of the article seems to be that cosmic dust is thicker, more concentrated, than it was thought to be.

secondly

Click to expand...

, in this article they said 'more like smoke ' because they thought before that it's same as house dust and they were wrong

Click to expand...

Again, more like doesn't mean is equal to. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

thirdly

Click to expand...

, it was writer expression.
if you wanna other expression to assure that it was smoke .

ScienceDaily (Jul. 17, 2003) — A team of UK astronomers have announced the discovery that some supernovae have bad habits - they belch out huge quantities of 'smoke' known as cosmic dust.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030717090947.htm

Click to expand...

Note the "smoke" between quote marks. Again, this is to indicate that it is not smoke, but rather somthing that resembles smoke.

firstly , as you say it was the origin of universe according to me not quran , what i meant by origin is 'before exist of earth and the heavins there was a smoke'

Click to expand...

But the heavens are the universe, is it not?

secondly beside the science not discovered yet the source of smoke , whatever if they did , it will not contradict with the verse of quran .

Click to expand...

Of course it won't, because you'll twist and turn untill you've twisted the meaning beyond the stretching point you've twisted it in already.

may be you will more comfortable if i said that smoke was stage of creation of universe although it's still first stage known by scientists?

Click to expand...

But it isn't the first stage known by scientists. It isn't even a stage in the creation of the universe.

And it isn't smoke, it is something that resembles smoke. Resembling something and being something are not the same thing.

elwill said:

Tomk80:

let us talk with logic , science and honour

scientist said
cosmic 'dust' actually consists of tiny solid grains (mostly carbon and silicates) floating around in interstellar space, with similar sizes to the particles in cigarette smoke.

give me a break , they test this dust and it was consist of tiny solid grains from carbon and silicate and with similar sizes to the particles in cegarettr smoke .
is it not enough ?

Click to expand...

Nope, it is not. Because smoke also signifies something about the origin, smoke inherently originating from fire (which is a very planetary thing). Furhtermore, the text only says that the particles are similar in size as the particles in cigarette smoke. It does not tell us that the composition is the same as the composition of something we would describe as 'smoke'.

And this is inherent in all articles you quote, where all statements made signify that the cosmic dust resembles smoke in some ways, not that it is smoke.

But more specifically it fails because the state of the universe would not fit the description you quoted:
Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke... (Quran, 41:11)

Because at the time the earth formed, the heaven consisted of both stars and space dust, because the first thing to form were stars of light elements (helium and hydrogen).

Now if that verse had stated "Then he turned to the heaven when it contained something almost, but not entirely, like smoke and dotted with numerous stars... "(Quran, 41:11)

You might have been onto something. Alas, it is not to be.

elwill said:

let us argue with honest and fair , take in your consederatin that quran revealed 1400 years ago.

firstly , you wanna to say that scientist not sure yet if it was smoke, but it's the same as smoke
so quran is sure that it's smoke , so there's no contradicts here

secondly, in this article they said 'more like smoke ' because they thought before that it's same as house dust and they were wrong

thirdly , it was writer expression.
if you wanna other expression to assure that it was smoke .

ScienceDaily (Jul. 17, 2003) — A team of UK astronomers have announced the discovery that some supernovae have bad habits - they belch out huge quantities of 'smoke' known as cosmic dust.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030717090947.htm



firstly , as you say it was the origin of universe according to me not quran , what i meant by origin is 'before exist of earth and the heavins there was a smoke'

secondly beside the science not discovered yet the source of smoke , whatever if they did , it will not contradict with the verse of quran .

may be you will more comfortable if i said that smoke was stage of creation of universe although it's still first stage known by scientists?

Click to expand...

There was no SMOKE at the beginning of the Universe, just Hydrogen and Helium, which do not constitute smoke.

When the Koran was written, they had no idea what smoke was, indeed they had no idea of the periodic table, or how organic material “the product of photosynthesis” could combine with Oxygen in what you would now as fire, which produced smoke due to inefficient combustion.

Do not equate smoke with interstellar dust, they are not the same thing.