The space was smoke

[exchemist]

Just be sincere and answer this question.

Do you agree that during the formation of the galaxies the medium looks like smoke?
Please answer what you can see and not what smoke means

No. For a start, what "medium" are you referring to? There is no medium. Just space and stars.

Secondly, as I said before, the Milky Way, today, could be said to look a bit like "smoke", consisting as it does of uncountable millions of stars a very long way off. The same is true of the Andromeda Nebula, which is actually a neighbouring galaxy (nebula is Latin for cloud or fog, so smoke is almost the same idea) So these galaxies do look a bit like smoke, today.

No doubt, at earlier stages in their lives they would have looked just as much like smoke as they do now. But saying that tells you nothing at all about their formation. They formed, so we believe, from clouds of gas. These do not look like smoke, because gas does not scatter light as smoke does.

 

[james blunt]

No. For a start, what "medium" are you referring to? There is no medium. Just space and stars.

Quite incorrect again Mr C, there is a Quantum field medium emanating from all object mass that fills the space between the stars.

 

[FearGod]

No. For a start, what "medium" are you referring to? There is no medium. Just space and stars.

Secondly, as I said before, the Milky Way, today, could be said to look a bit like "smoke", consisting as it does of uncountable millions of stars a very long way off. The same is true of the Andromeda Nebula, which is actually a neighbouring galaxy (nebula is Latin for cloud or fog, so smoke is almost the same idea) So these galaxies do look a bit like smoke, today.

No doubt, at earlier stages in their lives they would have looked just as much like smoke as they do now. But saying that tells you nothing at all about their formation. They formed, so we believe, from clouds of gas. These do not look like smoke, because gas does not scatter light as smoke does.

I asked you if it looks like smoke and not what it consists of?

New stars shed light on the past

 

[james blunt]

I asked you if it looks like smoke and not what it consists of?

It looks like smoke , but looks aren't everything.

 

[FearGod]

It looks like smoke , but looks aren't everything.

Thank you for being sincere.

 

[james blunt]

Thank you for being sincere.

Your welcome, some people cold read everything or cold define everything. It is blatantly obvious it looks like smoke. It is also obvious you stated it looks like smoke, you did not state it was smoke.

 

[FearGod]

Your welcome, some people cold read everything or cold define everything. It is blatantly obvious it looks like smoke. It is also obvious you stated it looks like smoke, you did not state it was smoke.

Exactly, I was asking for the view only.

 

[james blunt]

Exactly, I was asking for the view only.

In life, you will find a considerable amount of people who put too much opinion in reply to a simple question . Quite often , unrelated to the question.

 

[ecco]

I asked you if it looks like smoke and not what it consists of?

New stars shed light on the past

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)

Parts of it look like smoke, a lot of it doesn't.

41:11 doesn't say anything about "looks like smoke". It specifically says "while it was smoke". It was never smoke.

 

[FearGod]

Parts of it look like smoke, a lot of it doesn't.

41:11 doesn't say anything about "looks like smoke". It specifically says "while it was smoke". It was never smoke.

That is the word available before 1500 years ago "smoke", if I said to you
liquid, do I mean water?

 

[Windwalker]

The milky way was known for so long, but no, the verse has nothing to do with the milky way.

Yes it's about the date of creating our galaxy.

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)

Alright, let's take a look at this then as talking about the formation of the earth. Do you believe science teaches that the earth was formed out of the "smoke"? Do you believe the Quran teaches that the earth and the sun came into existence at the same time out of the "smoke"? Is that what I am reading in the verse above where it says he spoke to the smoke and the earth came into being out of it? Can you explain how the earth came out of the "smoke" please? Explain earth's formation according to the quran.

 

[FearGod]

Alright, let's take a look at this then as talking about the formation of the earth. Do you believe science teaches that the earth was formed out of the "smoke"? Do you believe the Quran teaches that the earth and the sun came into existence at the same time out of the "smoke"? Is that what I am reading in the verse above where it says he spoke to the smoke and the earth came into being out of it? Can you explain how the earth came out of the "smoke" please? Explain earth's formation according to the quran.

I understand from the verse that the space was still smoke when the earth was created
and both were fit together willingly and not unwillingly which means that things were
directed to happen by intention and not just happened to be so(unwillingly), I don't understand
how God communicates with earth and the smoke, is the universe conscious and everything
around us have some kind of consciousness, I don't really know.

 

[gnostic]

If I asked you what you see in this picture, will you say wood or car, even though that we
know that cars have metallic body but still it looks as a car.

What it looks like, doesn't mean that's what it is.

Exactly, I was asking for the view only.

This is crap. You are dodging and you keep moving the goalpost.

You weren’t just talking about space “looks like smoke”, you are saying it “was smoke”. You keep jumping from “was” to “looks like”, and then back again, whenever it suit you.

Using the words “was” is literal, while using “like” isn’t literal.

This is your words in the thread’s subject line:

“The space was smoke”​

This is literal, because using "was" has literary meaning and literal interpretation. So no "like smoke", here.

And then in the 1st two paragraphs in your OP, you wrote (the 2nd line being the English translation of verse 41:11 in question):

At the beginning it was smoke and scientists were able to trace the formation of stars
from the remnants of the smoke.

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)

All these are literal - thus it has literal meaning and literal interpretation. You never say it "looks like smoke".

And the verse, Qur'an 41:11, is literal "was smoke", not that it "looks like smoke".

But then in the very next paragraphs (from the OP), you jump from "was smoke", to it "looks like smoke":

It looks like smoke, the same view of the smoke of cigarette, those who tried to refute the verse
were focusing on the word smoke to be wrong, close but not scientifically the right word.

Well, the word "smoke" is wrong, scientifically.

So jump from saying "was smoke" to "It looks like smoke", then in the very next paragraph, you jump back to your original statement (1st 2 paragraphs):

Now if the quran was made up then why the author has to tell that the space was smoke at the
beginning of the creation, what benefit he gets from describing how it looks like at the beginning.

"...why the author has to tell that the space was smoke".​

Those are your words, above, that "the space was smoke", not "the space looks like smoke."

What you have been saying is that the Earth was created by Allah, from smoke, not from what looks like smoke.

As I have been telling you in my first post in this thread, smoke is a very specific type of gases, as waste byproduct gases from the result of burning, more often carbon monoxide mixed with hydrogen cyanide.

There are three real-world applications for using smoke: (A) preserving or cooking meat with smoke, (B) fumigating pest, and smoke bombs use to distract and confuse enemies.

Other than that, smoke is useless gases; it cannot create anything.

Even though, I am not Earth scientist, nor an astronomer, I can tell you that these compounds (carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide) don''t naturally occur in space, because nothing is burning in space.

Hydrogen and helium are more abundant in space, and it is the main source of elements in stars. And in the Milky Way there are over 400 billion stars.

These stars, including our Sun, were not made by "smoke", but from mostly hydrogen.

I don't give the bull crap about it "looks like smoke" in that photo. I am more interested in what those clouds of interstellar matters do contain, which is not your smoke.

 

[exchemist]

I asked you if it looks like smoke and not what it consists of?

New stars shed light on the past

Actually no, you asked me what some unspecified "medium" looks like, during the formation of galaxies. Which was hard to answer, as there is no such "medium". But I did my best.

What is this picture? It looks like a nebula. If it is, it contains dust, which scatters light like smoke. However the gas clouds from which our galaxy is thought to have formed would not have contained dust, as dust is made from what astronomers call "metals" i.e. elements heavier than helium, which only arise as products of nuclear fusion, after stars have died, i.e. in 2nd generation systems. So far as I am aware our galaxy is thought to have formed after the big bang before any stars had gone though a complete lifecycle. So there would have been no dust, no scattering and no "smoke", at the time our galaxy was originally formed.

 

[FearGod]

What it looks like, doesn't mean that's what it is.

We give the meaning for the word, long time ago the word gas didn't exist
and hence the alternative was smoke

This is crap. You are dodging and you keep moving the goalpost.

You weren’t just talking about space “looks like smoke”, you are saying it “was smoke”. You keep jumping from “was” to “looks like”, and then back again, whenever it suit you.

Yes I asked if it looks like smoke, so what's wrong with that,
are you annoyed because it really looks like smoke but it isn't smoke?

Using the words “was” is literal, while using “like” isn’t literal.

This is your words in the thread’s subject line:

“The space was smoke”​

This is literal, because using "was" has literary meaning and literal interpretation. So no "like smoke", here.

Yes because the word gas didn't exist, but still the view looks like smoke.
do you think it should be "the space was gas"

And then in the 1st two paragraphs in your OP, you wrote (the 2nd line being the English translation of verse 41:11 in question):

At the beginning it was smoke and scientists were able to trace the formation of stars
from the remnants of the smoke.

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)


All these are literal - thus it has literal meaning and literal interpretation. You never say it "looks like smoke".

And the verse, Qur'an 41:11, is literal "was smoke", not that it "looks like smoke".

But then in the very next paragraphs (from the OP), you jump from "was smoke", to it "looks like smoke":

Again and again, the word gas didn't exist and hence the word smoke is the alternative,
the word "smoke" is innovated by humans and we specify for what to use it, it isn't a matter,
it's a word.

If I told you it's liquid, does that mean it's water, we assign the word liquid for things
which looks like water, so the word "smoke" has similar meaning, it isn't liquid
and it isn't solid.

Well, the word "smoke" is wrong, scientifically.

Smoke is a word made by us, this word isn't a scientific fact as gravity is

So jump from saying "was smoke" to "It looks like smoke", then in the very next paragraph, you jump back to your original statement (1st 2 paragraphs):

Now if the quran was made up then why the author has to tell that the space was smoke at the
beginning of the creation, what benefit he gets from describing how it looks like at the beginning.

"...why the author has to tell that the space was smoke".​

Those are your words, above, that "the space was smoke", not "the space looks like smoke."

Yes this is what the verse says"it was smoke", and I asked if the scene looks like smoke, and it's

What you have been saying is that the Earth was created by Allah, from smoke, not from what looks like smoke.

"It was" doesn't mean that God made it from smoke(as we know it now),
This is an ice, it was liquid ...... from liquid to ice, still the same substance
This is solid, it was gas(smoke)............ from gas to solid, still the same substance

As I have been telling you in my first post in this thread, smoke is a very specific type of gases, as waste byproduct gases from the result of burning, more often carbon monoxide mixed with hydrogen cyanide.

A word isn't science, we assign what each word means, again liquid could mean water
and could mean urine as well.

There are three real-world applications for using smoke: (A) preserving or cooking meat with smoke, (B) fumigating pest, and smoke bombs use to distract and confuse enemies.

Other than that, smoke is useless gases; it cannot create anything.

Smoke is the word used for such gases, it isn't liquid, it isn't solid, so it's smoke(gas).

Even though, I am not Earth scientist, nor an astronomer, I can tell you that these compounds (carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide) don''t naturally occur in space, because nothing is burning in space.

Wasn't it extremely hot?

Hydrogen and helium are more abundant in space, and it is the main source of elements in stars. And in the Milky Way there are over 400 billion stars.

These stars, including our Sun, were not made by "smoke", but from mostly hydrogen.

That means it wasn't solid, it wasn't liquid, it was gas(smoke) and it was extremely hot

I don't give the bull crap about it "looks like smoke" in that photo. I am more interested in what those clouds of interstellar matters do contain, which is not your smoke.

If you want exactly to know what it contains then you have to go back billions of years.

My question to you
If the Nebula was consisting of Hydrogen and dust, then how other elements evolved?

 

[FearGod]

Actually no, you asked me what some unspecified "medium" looks like, during the formation of galaxies. Which was hard to answer, as there is no such "medium". But I did my best.

What is this picture? It looks like a nebula. If it is, it contains dust, which scatters light like smoke. However the gas clouds from which our galaxy is thought to have formed would not have contained dust, as dust is made from what astronomers call "metals" i.e. elements heavier than helium, which only arise as products of nuclear fusion, after stars have died, i.e. in 2nd generation systems. So far as I am aware our galaxy is thought to have formed after the big bang before any stars had gone though a complete lifecycle. So there would have been no dust, no scattering and no "smoke", at the time our galaxy was originally formed.

You're absolutely wrong, it contains dust as well.

Our solar system began forming within a concentration of interstellar dust and hydrogen gas called a molecular cloud. The cloud contracted under its own gravity and our proto-Sun formed in the hot dense center. The remainder of the cloud formed a swirling disk called of the solar nebula.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_1.html

 

[exchemist]

My question to you
If the Nebula was consisting of Hydrogen and dust, then how other elements evolved?

All the elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and some lithium (I think?) are understood to derive from these three, by means of the cascades of nuclear fusion processes that take place in stars. The dust consists of some of these heaver elements, sometimes combined into chemical compounds (minerals).

When a star comes to the end of its life, it often explodes as a supernova, scattering these heavier elements into space and generating nebulae. The Crab nebula is a case in point. The Chinese observed the supernova in 1054 and we see the resulting nebula today: Crab Nebula - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

You're absolutely wrong, it contains dust as well.

Our solar system began forming within a concentration of interstellar dust and hydrogen gas called a molecular cloud. The cloud contracted under its own gravity and our proto-Sun formed in the hot dense center. The remainder of the cloud formed a swirling disk called of the solar nebula.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_1.html

No. Now you have changed the subject. You are now talking about our solar system. Before you were talking about our galaxy (the Milky Way). And earlier still you were talking about the origin of the whole cosmos.

Make your mind up what it is you want to discuss, please.

Regarding our own solar system, yes you are quite right that it condensed from a cloud of gas and dust. Our solar system, however, is only about 5bn years old,whereas the galaxy and the cosmos are more like 14bn years old. See the difference? In the case of our solar system, yes there has been plenty of time for earlier generations of stars to have burnt out and showered their heavy elements into space, forming dust clouds.

But that is not what you were asking about - until now, that is.

 

[FearGod]

All the elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and some lithium (I think?) are understood to derive from these three, by means of the cascades of nuclear fusion processes that take place in stars. The dust consists of some of these heaver elements, sometimes combined into chemical compounds (minerals).

When a star comes to the end of its life, it often explodes as a supernova, scattering these heavier elements into space and generating nebulae. The Crab nebula is a case in point. The Chinese observed the supernova in 1054 and we see the resulting nebula today: Crab Nebula - Wikipedia

What about Oxygen and carbon, were they existed or evolved?
Don't you think that the nebula consists of other elements than Hydrogen and Helium?

 

[FearGod]

No. Now you have changed the subject. You are now talking about our solar system. Before you were talking about our galaxy (the Milky Way). And earlier still you were talking about the origin of the whole cosmos.

Make your mind up what it is you want to discuss, please.

Regarding our own solar system, yes you are quite right that it condensed from a cloud of gas and dust. Our solar system, however, is only about 5bn years old,whereas the galaxy and the cosmos are more like 14bn years old. See the difference? In the case of our solar system, yes there has been plenty of time for earlier generations of stars to have burnt out and showered their heavy elements into space, forming dust clouds.

But that is not what you were asking about - until now, that is.

The verse is about the date that earth was created and the space was smoke.
Was that the big bang?