The space was smoke

[exchemist]

I was talking about Arabic linguistic,word gas was not used in that era/age.

smoke is probably closer to meaning because some gases has no color.and galazies looks like smokes in universe.

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.

 

[FearGod]

I am simply trying to get some confirmation from you about what you are claiming this verse represents.

I have no idea whatsoever what it could mean, quite frankly. Its meaning in translation seems vague and self-contradictory, to the point of being meaningless, at least to the uninitiated like me. But I am not a Quran scholar. That's why I want to get clear what you think.

You're playing around, I don't have much time to waste with you.

 

[FearGod]

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.

You're really funny, how old are you?

 

[exchemist]

You're really funny, how old are you?

Older than you.

In post 123 of this thread you said: "It wasn't about the bb but about our solar system, the solar nebula."

So that is in disagreement with what Godobeyer was saying to explain the same verse, which was that in the Arabic of that era there was no word for "gas" and so "smoke" was used instead.

So he or she is making a case that it refers to the origin of our galaxy or the universe as a whole, while you are saying it refers to the origin of our solar system, 9 billion years later.

 

[FearGod]

Older than you.

In post 123 of this thread you said: "It wasn't about the bb but about our solar system, the solar nebula."

So that is in disagreement with what Godobeyer was saying to explain the same verse, which was that in the Arabic of that era there was no word for "gas" and so "smoke" was used instead.

So he or she is making a case that it refers to the origin of our galaxy or the universe as a whole, while you are saying it refers to the origin of our solar system, 9 billion years later.

How it speaks about the origin of the universe while earth was created?
why you need someone to interpret it to you?

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)

 

[exchemist]

How it speaks about the origin of the universe while earth was created?
why you need someone to interpret it to you?

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)

Thank you. No further questions, m'lud.

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.

 

[FearGod]

Thank you. No further questions, m'lud.

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.

Not even a successful lawyer or prosecutor.

 

[exchemist]

Not even a successful lawyer or prosecutor.

That is for the jury to decide.

 

[FearGod]

That is for the jury to decide.

You have to wait afterlife and see yourself.

 

[exchemist]

You have to wait afterlife and see yourself.

If there is one....

But I'll stop here, as you obviously are keen to have the last word.

Ma'a salaama.

 

[FearGod]

If there is one....

But I'll stop here, as you obviously are keen to have the last word.

Ma'a salaama.

Ma'a salaama loser.

 

[exchemist]

Ma'a salaama loser.

OK, Khalas.

 

[FearGod]

OK, Khalas.

Have a nice day,

 

[gnostic]

And the scientists said it was a cloud of smoke, should we believe you or them,
How many times should I repeat it so you losers can understand.

SCIENTISTS SAY

On the left of this new image there is a dark column resembling a cloud of smoke. To the right shines a small group of brilliant stars. At first glance these two features could not be more different, but they are in fact closely linked. The cloud contains huge amounts of cool cosmic dust and is a nursery where new stars are being born. It is likely that the Sun formed in a similar star formation region more than four billion years ago.

Light from darkness: Brilliant stars emerging from dusty stellar nursery

You really don’t know how to read do you, FearGod.

Saying that “resembling smoke”, doesn’t mean that cloud is smoke.

Look up the word “resemble”, for goodness’ sake.

Smoke don’t exist in space, but you are so focus on smoke, without looking at the rest of bloody article.

This Lupus 3, is nebula, which comprise of dust and ionised gas, mostly of hydrogen, not “smoke”.

For goodness sake learn that not all gas are not smoke.

Smoke only exist on Earth, as I keep telling you, carbon monoxide don’t exist in space.

The only loser is you, because you are twisting words from article. Resembling smoke or looks like smoke, doesn’t mean it has the same exact chemical properties of smoke.

Ice has the looks of glass or crystal, but it molecularly it is just water.

Looks don’t tell you the whole story. You should know this if you being paying attention in chemistry class.

 

[FearGod]

You really don’t know how to read do you, FearGod.

Saying that “resembling smoke”, doesn’t mean that cloud is smoke.

Look up the word “resemble”, for goodness’ sake.

Smoke don’t exist in space, but you are so focus on smoke, without looking at the rest of bloody article.

This Lupus 3, is nebula, which comprise of dust and ionised gas, mostly of hydrogen, not “smoke”.

For goodness sake learn that not all gas are not smoke.

Smoke only exist on Earth, as I keep telling you, carbon monoxide don’t exist in space.

The only loser is you, because you are twisting words from article. Resembling smoke or looks like smoke, doesn’t mean it has the same exact chemical properties of smoke.

Ice has the looks of glass or crystal, but it molecularly it is just water.

Looks don’t tell you the whole story. You should know this if you being paying attention in chemistry class.

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

 

[exchemist]

You really don’t know how to read do you, FearGod.

Saying that “resembling smoke”, doesn’t mean that cloud is smoke.

Look up the word “resemble”, for goodness’ sake.

Smoke don’t exist in space, but you are so focus on smoke, without looking at the rest of bloody article.

This Lupus 3, is nebula, which comprise of dust and ionised gas, mostly of hydrogen, not “smoke”.

For goodness sake learn that not all gas are not smoke.

Smoke only exist on Earth, as I keep telling you, carbon monoxide don’t exist in space.

The only loser is you, because you are twisting words from article. Resembling smoke or looks like smoke, doesn’t mean it has the same exact chemical properties of smoke.

Ice has the looks of glass or crystal, but it molecularly it is just water.

Looks don’t tell you the whole story. You should know this if you being paying attention in chemistry class.

Watch it, we're triggering the large font sizes and lurid colours now. Best go easy or you may get a van driven at you.

 

[FearGod]

Watch it, we're triggering the large font sizes and lurid colours now. Best go easy or you may get a van driven at you.

You have nothing other than silly comments you losers.

 

[exchemist]

You have nothing other than silly comments you losers.

Well yes. The discussion is now over, after all.

 

[Shad]

This is why Muslims have made no scientific discoveries in the last 6 or 7 centuries.

Instead of continuing to make progress in science and technology during and after the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, they had let wars consume them, and by the 19th century, you have Muslim philosophers hardening of the good old days, 7th century.

And it gotten worse in the 20th century. By the last few decades, instead of learning from today’s science and technology, some of these Muslims are quoting the passages from Qur’an for these so-called scientific miracles, in which they their own scriptures out-of-context, by twisting the words to mean something else.

YouTube Muslim televangelist Zakir Naik has become the leading role model for backward Muslims. Thankfully, not all Muslims considered Naik as champion of science.

Naik’s Islamic Research Foundation has become like the pseudoscience Discovery Institute that advocate Intelligent Design.

My point was about users like Feargod and those that use these miracles claims not the general population.

 

[Shad]

This is how it was look like, it looks like smoke, I'm not saying what it contains
or consists of, but the the view looks smoke.

You have conceded the argument. The OP title claims a fact not a "looks like". Looks like is an appearance similarity not material similarity.