The space was smoke

[Godobeyer]

Ah OK, so you disagree with Fear God, then.

He thinks it is smoke, i.e. dust, and therefore refers, not to the origin of the universe but to the origin of our solar system, i.e. the Earth, about 9 billion years later.

No I don't disagree .

I said word Arabic "gas" غاز was not exist in that time. God used smoke دخان

 

[exchemist]

No I don't disagree .

I said word Arabic "gas" غاز was not exist in that time. God used smoke دخان

Yes that's fair enough. But do you think then that the verse in question relates to the formation of our solar system? In other words it does not refer to the origin of the whole universe, or of our galaxy?

 

[ecco]

Researchers mentioning the exact word "smoke" for new image.


On the left of this new image there is a dark column resembling a cloud of smoke.

Something resembling a cloud of smoke is not smoke.

Some cloud formations look like smoke.

Or, maybe this is what your prophets were referring to.

 

[ecco]

... of what existed as gaseous matter before the cause behind the Big Bang expanded it!

That's one of the worst descriptions of the Big Bang I've ever read.

There was no gaseous matter before the Big Bang.
The Big Bang did not expand gaseous matter.

 

[ecco]

Forget about me and Mohsen you losers and see what the verse itself says

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."(41:11)

Do you understand from the verse that it speaks about the origin of the universe while earth was already created?

Sooo, the origin of the universe came after the earth was created!?!

I used to think the OT writers were confused. Their Genesis at least has most things in a logical order.

 

[ecco]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I put it to you that this demonstrates my contention that is it is futile to try to ascribe scientific meaning to holy scripture.

I would disagree with your conclusion;

Clearly there are some who do ascribe scientific meaning to holy scripture.
It is futile to try to disuade people who have been indoctrinated in holy scripture from ascribing scientific meaning to holy scripture.

 

[exchemist]

I would disagree with your conclusion;

Clearly there are some who do ascribe scientific meaning to holy scripture.
It is futile to try to disuade people who have been indoctrinated in holy scripture from ascribing scientific meaning to holy scripture.

The observation that some people attempt an exercise is no evidence that it is not futile.

 

[Godobeyer]

Yes that's fair enough. But do you think then that the verse in question relates to the formation of our solar system? In other words it does not refer to the origin of the whole universe, or of our galaxy?

That verse and other verse about creation of universe ,it's describe exactly Big Bang theory.

 

[FearGod]

Something resembling a cloud of smoke is not smoke.

Some cloud formations look like smoke.

Or, maybe this is what your prophets were referring to.

And what about this Mr scientist

Where there's smoke, there's fire -- even in outer space. A new infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows a burning hot galaxy whose fiery stars appear to be blowing out giant billows of smoky dust.

The galaxy, called Messier 82, or the "Cigar galaxy," was previously known to host a hotbed of young, massive stars. The new Spitzer image reveals, for the first time, the "smoke" surrounding those stellar fires.
Galaxy on Fire! NASA's Spitzer Reveals Stellar Smoke - NASA Spitzer Space Telescope

 

[FearGod]

Sooo, the origin of the universe came after the earth was created!?!

I used to think the OT writers were confused. Their Genesis at least has most things in a logical order.

Stupid comment indeed.

The verse is about the time that earth was created and space is still smoke, it doesn't speak about the bb,
how many times I should repeat it in this thread.

The bb theory was mentioned in one other verse that mentioned that the universe was one united piece before
being separated apart.

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

 

[FearGod]

That verse and other verse about creation of universe ,it's describe exactly Big Bang theory.

Hope that they understand now that the verse of the bb is not the same as the one talking about the creation of earth
while space was still smoke.

 

[gnostic]

You are the loser, you don't know what in the outer space billions of years ago, do you?

Again and again and again, hope that finally you may understand


You can't really comprehend that there are different types of smokes depending on material
and it may contain several gases and chemicals.

Smoke is a collection of tiny solid, liquid and gas particles. Although smoke can contain hundreds of different chemicals and fumes, visible smoke is mostly carbon (soot), tar, oils and ash.
and carbon existed in the solar nebula besides Oxygen
What is smoke?

Where there's smoke, there's fire -- even in outer space. A new infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows a burning hot galaxy whose fiery stars appear to be blowing out giant billows of smoky dust.

The galaxy, called Messier 82, or the "Cigar galaxy," was previously known to host a hotbed of young, massive stars. The new Spitzer image reveals, for the first time, the "smoke" surrounding those stellar fires.
Galaxy on Fire! NASA's Spitzer Reveals Stellar Smoke - NASA Spitzer Space Telescope

I think that you should teach the Nasa scientists that smoke doesn't exist in outer space

I don’t need to teach nasa scientists, nor astronomers, anything about what you clearly not understanding.

Not all gases are “smoke”.

Smoke as I keep telling you is very specific gas, as the result of combustion or pyrolysis of materials.

Smoke is a chemical compound of carbon monoxide (CO), which don’t exist in space.

In space, you will find mainly elemental gases of hydrogen (H) and of helium (He), not compound gas like smoke.

Nebula, those photos you have been posting, is a cloud of interstellar materials like dust, and ionised hydrogen and ionised helium gas. There is no carbon monoxide gas (smoke).

The percentages of gases in any nebula (emission nebula, like planetary nebula) is about 97%, the rest is about nearly 3% of helium, and perhaps a trace amount of other ionised gases. These percentages can varied slightly, depending on the amount of helium being slightly higher or lower.

What you see in the images, you have posted, are light from star or stars, reflecting and refracting off the interstellar medium and ionised gases. The colour you see is the result of light refracting off ionised hydrogen or ionised helium.

There are no smoke, nor fire involved.

The point of what I am saying is that compounds or molecules of gases don’t exist naturally in space, but elemental gases (mostly of hydrogen and of helium) do exist. Smoke are not elemental gas.

Every NASA’s or ESA’s photos that you have shown, support my claims that it may look like cloud of smoke, but the chemical composition of those clouds are not smoke. They are mostly of hydrogen, with helium being the second most commonly detected gases out there.

Cloud of gases don’t require fire.

The cloud in our sky, come from evaporation of water molecules (H2O), and there is no fire in making these cloud of gases. But under normal circumstances, water is liquid form in room temperature, and at zero degrees Celsius, this same water molecules will turn into ice.

Temperature is involved in natural changes to the state of water molecules, and it doesn’t require fire for these changes to occur.

Evaporation of water don’t even have to be boiling for evaporation to occur, as can be seen in any foggy days or nights. Fog and mist don’t require fire.

 

[ecco]

And what about this Mr scientist

Where there's smoke, there's fire -- even in outer space. A new infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope shows a burning hot galaxy whose fiery stars appear to be blowing out giant billows of smoky dust.

The galaxy, called Messier 82, or the "Cigar galaxy," was previously known to host a hotbed of young, massive stars. The new Spitzer image reveals, for the first time, the "smoke" surrounding those stellar fires.
Galaxy on Fire! NASA's Spitzer Reveals Stellar Smoke - NASA Spitzer Space Telescope

You don't need to SHOUT to get my attention.

There are two ways to get my attention:

1. Make sensible arguments
2. Make assinine arguments

You fall into category 2.

 

[ecco]

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

What does that even mean- "joined entity"?
What does "heavens" mean? The sky? The stars?
Were the stars once on (joined to) the earth?

Why don't you describe, in your own words, what that passage means.

 

[FearGod]

I don’t need to teach nasa scientists, nor astronomers, anything about what you clearly not understanding.

Not all gases are “smoke”.

Smoke as I keep telling you is very specific gas, as the result of combustion or pyrolysis of materials.

Smoke is a chemical compound of carbon monoxide (CO), which don’t exist in space.

In space, you will find mainly elemental gases of hydrogen (H) and of helium (He), not compound gas like smoke.

Nebula, those photos you have been posting, is a cloud of interstellar materials like dust, and ionised hydrogen and ionised helium gas. There is no carbon monoxide gas (smoke).

The percentages of gases in any nebula (emission nebula, like planetary nebula) is about 97%, the rest is about nearly 3% of helium, and perhaps a trace amount of other ionised gases. These percentages can varied slightly, depending on the amount of helium being slightly higher or lower.

What you see in the images, you have posted, are light from star or stars, reflecting and refracting off the interstellar medium and ionised gases. The colour you see is the result of light refracting off ionised hydrogen or ionised helium.

There are no smoke, nor fire involved.

The point of what I am saying is that compounds or molecules of gases don’t exist naturally in space, but elemental gases (mostly of hydrogen and of helium) do exist. Smoke are not elemental gas.

Every NASA’s or ESA’s photos that you have shown, support my claims that it may look like cloud of smoke, but the chemical composition of those clouds are not smoke. They are mostly of hydrogen, with helium being the second most commonly detected gases out there.

Cloud of gases don’t require fire.

The cloud in our sky, come from evaporation of water molecules (H2O), and there is no fire in making these cloud of gases. But under normal circumstances, water is liquid form in room temperature, and at zero degrees Celsius, this same water molecules will turn into ice.

Temperature is involved in natural changes to the state of water molecules, and it doesn’t require fire for these changes to occur.

Evaporation of water don’t even have to be boiling for evaporation to occur, as can be seen in any foggy days or nights. Fog and mist don’t require fire.

You should have the Nobel prize for this crap.
You don't like to lose , do you? but you lost regardless of how many lines you can write

Let's see what scientists found, I repeat scientists, did you see?

Using the National Radio Astronomy Observatory's Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA)—a huge, highly sophisticated radio telescope array situated at 16,500 feet altitude in the high desert of Chile—a Papovich-led team of astronomers studied four very young versions of galaxies like the Milky Way that are 9 billion light-years distant, meaning the team could see them as they looked approximately 9 billion years ago. They discovered that each galaxy was incredibly rich in carbon monoxide—a well-known tracer of molecular gas, which is the fuel for star formation.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-12-galaxy-evolution-theory.html#jCp

If you still don't understand then let me know, i'll try to help you by finding an easier version for kids.
You loser

 

[FearGod]

You don't need to SHOUT to get my attention.

There are two ways to get my attention:

1. Make sensible arguments
2. Make assinine arguments

You fall into category 2.

Because you fail to comprehend, I can't help in this case, see my signature below.

 

[FearGod]

What does that even mean- "joined entity"?
What does "heavens" mean? The sky? The stars?
Were the stars once on (joined to) the earth?

Why don't you describe, in your own words, what that passage means.

Believe me, I can't help you, better you watch this and enjoy, have some snacks.

 

[exchemist]

That verse and other verse about creation of universe ,it's describe exactly Big Bang theory.

No it doesn't, not in the least. Big Bang theory hypothesises an initial burst of electromagnetic radiation, followed by condensation of matter (and anti-matter) from this radiation, producing a plasma. Gas would not have formed until this plasma cooled sufficiently to create neutral atoms, which according to the model would have occurred about 380,000 years after the start. This - effectively - separated matter from radiation, making the universe transparent for the first time. The cosmic background radiation that we observe today dates from that point the plasma turned to atoms, the so-called "surface of last scattering". So the first gas would have appeared then.

However the galaxies formed from this gas, so you could argue that if "smoke" refers to gas, then the verse could possibly relate to the formation of galaxies. But not the big bang itself, definitely not. The big bang itself might actually be better described by the phrase: "Let there be light.", though I would not want to make too much of that.

 

[exchemist]

You should have the noble prize for this crap.

Nobel.

 

[FearGod]

Nobel.

No it doesn't, not in the least. Big Bang theory hypothesises an initial burst of electromagnetic radiation, followed by condensation of matter (and anti-matter) from this radiation, producing a plasma. Gas would not have formed until this plasma cooled sufficiently to create neutral atoms, which according to the model would have occurred about 380,000 years after the start. This - effectively - separated matter from radiation, making the universe transparent for the first time. The cosmic background radiation that we observe today dates from that point the plasma turned to atoms, the so-called "surface of last scattering". So the first gas would have appeared then.

However the galaxies formed from this gas, so you could argue that if "smoke" refers to gas, then the verse could possibly relate to the formation of galaxies. But not the big bang itself, definitely not. The big bang itself might actually be better described by the phrase: "Let there be light.", though I would not want to make too much of that.

OMG, the video is about the singularity which contained all mass and space-time of the universe and
the separation (inflation) the big bang that led to the born of our universe, it doesn't speak about smoke.

Very hard minds indeed, the verse talking about the bb again

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

The verse about the smoke is

Then He directed Himself to the heaven while it was smoke and said to it and to the earth, "Come [into being], willingly or by compulsion." They said, "We have come willingly."(41:11)