Universe & life coming into existence

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Come on, they're topologically equivalent...give this guy a little wiggle room. I still maintain that my cup of coffee and my doughnut basically the same thing, topologically speaking.

An oblate spheroid, a prolate spheroid and a sphere are all topologically equivalent, too. That's not the point.

This all started when A Thousand Suns claimed, basically, that the Quran had special scientific knowledge because it described the Earth as "like an ostrich egg" instead of as a sphere, and since the Earth is more like an ostrich egg than it is like a sphere, this is evidence that the author of the Quran had knowledge beyond the ken of the people of the time.

The problem with this argument is that the Earth is less like an ostrich egg than it is like a sphere.

It'd be like someone saying that a bicycle inner tube is shaped more like your coffee mug than it is like your donut. All three shapes are topologically equivalent (if you consider the inner tube to be a solid object and not a hollow shell, of course), but the statement's still wrong.

 

[Reptillian]

An oblate spheroid, a prolate spheroid and a sphere are all topologically equivalent, too. That's not the point.

This all started when A Thousand Suns claimed, basically, that the Quran had special scientific knowledge because it described the Earth as "like an ostrich egg" instead of as a sphere, and since the Earth is more like an ostrich egg than it is like a sphere, this is evidence that the author of the Quran had knowledge beyond the ken of the people of the time.

The problem with this argument is that the Earth is less like an ostrich egg than it is like a sphere.

It'd be like someone saying that a bicycle inner tube is shaped more like your coffee mug than it is like your donut. All three shapes are topologically equivalent (if you consider the inner tube to be a solid object and not a hollow shell, of course), but the statement's still wrong.

I know, I was just joking around...terrible joke for sure, but its to be expected before I have my morning cup of coffee.

Edit: I guess if I had anything like a point with my post, it was that you can take a scriptural verse in a lot of different ways so believers might look at something abstract like topologically equivalence in order to salvage a verse that doesn't fit modern knowledge.

 

[ellenjanuary]

I think it's pretty cool when I read some scripture and find a modern interpretation. Like how there's uncertainty in Ecclesiastes. But, that doesn't really mean there's uncertainty in Ecclesiastes, just that there's uncertainty in me, and when I read; I find a degree of positive reinforcement. The problem would be if I took my "reading into it" out of it. Good thing I'm not topologically equivalent to anything.

 

[Reptillian]

I think it's pretty cool when I read some scripture and find a modern interpretation. Like how there's uncertainty in Ecclesiastes. But, that doesn't really mean there's uncertainty in Ecclesiastes, just that there's uncertainty in me, and when I read; I find a degree of positive reinforcement. The problem would be if I took my "reading into it" out of it. Good thing I'm not topologically equivalent to anything.

I'm sure you're topologically equivalent to something...I just don't know enough about human anatomy to say what though.

I agree with you that finding a variety of meanings for the same passage can be pretty cool. Scripture is a lot like poetry in that regard. Sometimes a single passage can have multiple meanings to different people in different circumstances.

 

[Looncall]

Actually no ,its not that simple ,the origin of life on Earth is the result of biggest chemical fluke in this entire universe---- even the simplest known cell is so unlikely to form by accident----it wouldn't happen twice in the entire observable universe.

No-one claims that any cell formed by accident. You are overlooking the ratcheting effect of evolutionary changes, which accumulate over time.

Actually, I don't believe you are overlooking that. I think you know that perfectly well, but are lying through your teeth in the standard creationist style.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Edit: I guess if I had anything like a point with my post, it was that you can take a scriptural verse in a lot of different ways so believers might look at something abstract like topologically equivalence in order to salvage a verse that doesn't fit modern knowledge.

But the big thing in all this is that there was never any need for A Thousand Suns to shoehorn this whole "ostrich egg" thing into any weird meaning. The passage doesn't have to have any deeper meaning than the obvious one: to just to say by analogy that the Earth and an ostrich egg are both round things. This isn't wrong at all. However, it also isn't remarkable at all, because the fact that the Earth is round was well-known at the time the Quran was written.

Anyhow, all this is likely a moot point. I've been looking more into the verse in question and found this:

Sura 79:30 reads

• Wal'arda ba'da dhalika dahaha

and is usually translated as

• And the earth, moreover, hath He extended (to a wide expanse); (Yusuf Ali)
  And after that He spread the earth, (Pickthall)
  And the earth, He expanded it after that. (Shakir)

But some years ago, a new dawah[1] translation was made which reads

• "He made the earth egg-shaped."[2]

I had to look up "dawah", and I found out that it means "the preaching of Islam".

Now... I don't speak or read Arabic, so I can't confirm the claims of either side, but what I get from all this is that the commonly accepted translation doesn't include anything about eggs at all, and that translating "dahaha" as "egg-shaped", which apparently occurs only in one teaching translation, is considered highly questionable.

Edit: I was a bit reassured when I found many Muslim sources that agreed that the Earth is not egg-shaped, and that the Quran isn't trying to claim that it literally is.

 

[ellenjanuary]

After that He spread the earth
~Koran N.J. Dawood, 79:30
Well, the Koran was right next to me, so I thought to throw my two cents in. Besides, this is a Penguin Classic, so you know it's the real deal.

 

[Looncall]

But the big thing in all this is that there was never any need for A Thousand Suns to shoehorn this whole "ostrich egg" thing into any weird meaning. The passage doesn't have to have any deeper meaning than the obvious one: to just to say by analogy that the Earth and an ostrich egg are both round things. This isn't wrong at all. However, it also isn't remarkable at all, because the fact that the Earth is round was well-known at the time the Quran was written.

Anyhow, all this is likely a moot point. I've been looking more into the verse in question and found this:



I had to look up "dawah", and I found out that it means "the preaching of Islam".

Now... I don't speak or read Arabic, so I can't confirm the claims of either side, but what I get from all this is that the commonly accepted translation doesn't include anything about eggs at all, and that translating "dahaha" as "egg-shaped", which apparently occurs only in one teaching translation, is considered highly questionable.

Edit: I was a bit reassured when I found many Muslim sources that agreed that the Earth is not egg-shaped, and that the Quran isn't trying to claim that it literally is.

If the koran is this hard to translate, it is presumably also this hard to understand in the original. So, what use is it, other than to enable clerics to do whatever they want?

 

[ellenjanuary]

If the koran is this hard to translate, it is presumably also this hard to understand in the original. So, what use is it, other than to enable clerics to do whatever they want?

It's an oral tradition. To understand the Koran (as opposed to the Qu'ran), it is best to have an accepted translation - meaning one with scholarly accreditation - and some sympathic understanding of the Arabic culture. (Some of that good ol' Holy Spirit seems to help, too. I ain't got no problem with the Koran ) Being American, I understand Arabic culture to be different - not subject to American mores - and it is this cultural gap that makes me more Christian than Muslim - although I ain't exactly either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm seriously tired of explaining it over ,its seems to me a lost cause

Yes, like it's a lost cause arguing that "slightly short" is closer to "tall" than it is to "average".

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2251244-post87.html

You missed my point and I never said Earth & Ostrich Egg have same shape , I said they are similar . My point ,that the earth had gone through different stages and shapes since it was first created ,and the shape of Earth is still changing ,at present the Earth's shape is somewhere in between an ostrich egg and a perfect sphere.Earth is wider as you approach the equator which is caused by centripetal force because of earths spinning .So what I was trying to tell was that maybe in future they might become identical

If you think that might happen, then you don't understand the physics involved.

As for your claim that the Earth is between an ostrich egg and a perfect sphere, consider an illustrative diagram:

more oblate                                        more prolate
<----------------------------E-|---------------O--------------> 
 
 
| = perfect sphere
E = Earth
O = ostrich egg

The Earth isn't "between an ostrich egg and a perfect sphere". It's less like an ostrich egg than it is like a sphere.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

No-one claims that any cell formed by accident. You are overlooking the ratcheting effect of evolutionary changes, which accumulate over time.

Actually, I don't believe you are overlooking that. I think you know that perfectly well, but are lying through your teeth in the standard creationist style.

I believe the universe would be big enough for cells to form just by accident, especially when one considers the implications of an inflationary cosmos first put forward by Guth and Linde. In the early development on the universe it would through an explosive phase of inflation within the first 10 to the power of minus 36 seconds, and expanding virtually all the actual universe out of sight from the observable universe. So much so that observable universe is much smaller in comparison to the actual universe than a proton is to the observable universe. So with a universe that is so staggeringly immense I think accidental living cells would be an assured guarantee.

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe the universe would be big enough for cells to form just by accident, especially when one considers the implications of an inflationary cosmos first put forward by Guth and Linde. In the early development on the universe it would through an explosive phase of inflation within the first 10 to the power of minus 36 seconds, and expanding virtually all the actual universe out of sight from the observable universe. So much so that observable universe is much smaller in comparison to the actual universe than a proton is to the observable universe. So with a universe that is so staggeringly immense I think accidental living cells would be an assured guarantee.

I agree with this. There are ~400 billion stars in the Milky Way and about the same number of galaxies in the visible universe. That's roughly 1.6 x 10^23 stars in the visible universe (160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars). Something like 2/3s of stars are binary/trinary/more, and for the sake of argument we'll say that any planets orbiting these systems are unsustainable to life (though this is most likely a false assumption, it's best to err on the side of caution).

So, 2/3 of 1.6 x 10^23 = 1.06 x 10^23, (or 106,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 binary/trinary/etc. stars)

That leaves 5.4 x 10^22 "single" stars like Sol (54,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 "single" stars).

Of those stars, about 1 in 13 is a type-G star like the sun, so let's again err on the side of caution and only talk about those stars which are sun-like: which is about 4.2 x 10^21 (4,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 sun-like stars).

Of those stars, research is showing that about 1/4 of them may have planets similar to the size of earth, which is 1.05 x 10^21 (1,050,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars with earth-sized planets, which are class G sun-like stars).

The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 195,249,054.

That means if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had a random Powerball lottery ticket, we can expect ~5.4 x 10^12 randomly winning tickets (5,400,000,000,000 Powerball winning planets if each has just one ticket).

The odds of drawing a Royal Flush in the first hand if you draw only 5 cards from a thoroughly shuffled deck is 1:649,739.

That means if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had one deck of shuffled cards and someone drew the top 5 cards, we would expect 1.6 x 10^15 of them to draw a Royal Flush (1,600,000,000,000,000 Royal Flushes if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had a deck of cards).

Keep in mind:
1) This is only considering the observable universe; if inflationary theories are correct (and we have much reason to suspect they are) then the universe beyond the visible universe is larger compared to the visible universe than the visible universe is compared to planet Earth... that's a lot, lot, lot, lot more galaxies and thus a lot, lot, lot, lot more earth-sized planets orbitting sun-like stars.

2) I assumed that life couldn't form around binary star systems but that assumption may well be ill-placed: such systems can be extremely stable, and some are known to have planets.

3) I assumed that life might only develop on Earth-like planets, but that may not be the case. Carbon-based life may well be able to develop in different environments (consider the extremophiles we have on Earth), and carbon chemistry isn't the only chemistry system thought to be able to support life. Ammonia-based life would thrive on different kinds of planets than carbon-based life that we're familiar with (it's hypothesized ammonia-based life would thrive on very cold worlds with much higher pressures due to the nature of the chemistry). There's also the possibility phosphorous/nitrogen-based life, silicon-based life, cyanide-based life, and so on -- all which would thrive on different types of planets that I've left out of my calculations.

4) I assumed that only class G stars like Sol could sustain life, but taken in conjunction with the possibility of different chemistry-based life it may not be true that a star must be like Sol to sustain life. In fact, here is a theoretical diagram of different "Goldilocks zones" for carbon-based life for star types other than Sol's class G type:

Then keep in mind that the habitable zones would be different for different chemistry-based life.

Yeah... I'd say that the odds are astronomically in favor of life developing even if the odds of life developing are astronomically low (which they may well be).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I agree with this. There are ~400 billion stars in the Milky Way and about the same number of galaxies in the visible universe. That's roughly 1.6 x 10^23 stars in the visible universe (160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars). Something like 2/3s of stars are binary/trinary/more, and for the sake of argument we'll say that any planets orbiting these systems are unsustainable to life (though this is most likely a false assumption, it's best to err on the side of caution).

So, 2/3 of 1.6 x 10^23 = 1.06 x 10^23, (or 106,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 binary/trinary/etc. stars)

That leaves 5.4 x 10^22 "single" stars like Sol (54,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 "single" stars).

Of those stars, about 1 in 13 is a type-G star like the sun, so let's again err on the side of caution and only talk about those stars which are sun-like: which is about 4.2 x 10^21 (4,200,000,000,000,000,000,000 sun-like stars).

Of those stars, research is showing that about 1/4 of them may have planets similar to the size of earth, which is 1.05 x 10^21 (1,050,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars with earth-sized planets, which are class G sun-like stars).

The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1 in 195,249,054.

That means if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had a random Powerball lottery ticket, we can expect ~5.4 x 10^12 randomly winning tickets (5,400,000,000,000 Powerball winning planets if each has just one ticket).

The odds of drawing a Royal Flush in the first hand if you draw only 5 cards from a thoroughly shuffled deck is 1:649,739.

That means if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had one deck of shuffled cards and someone drew the top 5 cards, we would expect 1.6 x 10^15 of them to draw a Royal Flush (1,600,000,000,000,000 Royal Flushes if each earth-sized planet orbitting a sun-like star had a deck of cards).

Keep in mind:
1) This is only considering the observable universe; if inflationary theories are correct (and we have much reason to suspect they are) then the universe beyond the visible universe is larger compared to the visible universe than the visible universe is compared to planet Earth... that's a lot, lot, lot, lot more galaxies and thus a lot, lot, lot, lot more earth-sized planets orbitting sun-like stars.

2) I assumed that life couldn't form around binary star systems but that assumption may well be ill-placed: such systems can be extremely stable, and some are known to have planets.

3) I assumed that life might only develop on Earth-like planets, but that may not be the case. Carbon-based life may well be able to develop in different environments (consider the extremophiles we have on Earth), and carbon chemistry isn't the only chemistry system thought to be able to support life. Ammonia-based life would thrive on different kinds of planets than carbon-based life that we're familiar with (it's hypothesized ammonia-based life would thrive on very cold worlds with much higher pressures due to the nature of the chemistry). There's also the possibility phosphorous/nitrogen-based life, silicon-based life, cyanide-based life, and so on -- all which would thrive on different types of planets that I've left out of my calculations.

4) I assumed that only class G stars like Sol could sustain life, but taken in conjunction with the possibility of different chemistry-based life it may not be true that a star must be like Sol to sustain life. In fact, here is a theoretical diagram of different "Goldilocks zones" for carbon-based life for star types other than Sol's class G type:

Then keep in mind that the habitable zones would be different for different chemistry-based life.

Yeah... I'd say that the odds are astronomically in favor of life developing even if the odds of life developing are astronomically low (which they may well be).

I think girls who can multiply are sexy.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I also view the coincidence of our existence and the issue of the universe's fine tuning parameters is a bit like this Canadian wood frog who's body is literally frozen alive to endure the harsh Canadian winter. Just because that frog does not experience a winter because it is in frozen hibernation the whole time does not, from the frogs vantage point, mean Canada never has a winter. Same argument applies for us and our place in the universe, just because we cannot know the fundamental physical constants of "out of tune" dead universes does not mean they do not exist.

 

[Wombat]

"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then We clove them asunder and We got every living thing out of the water. Will they then not believe?"
Qur' an. sura 21, verse 30.

"The heaven, We have built it with power. Verily. We are expanding it."
Qur' an. sura 51, verse 47.

Everything that is in the heavens and the earth all joined together...then clove asunder...I wounder why it doesn't say it went "Bang"?...oh yea...no sound in space...such an expression would be unscientific/silly...and every living thing came up from the water...and the universe is expanding.....................................ahhhh.......just lucky guessing ;-)

 

[PolyHedral]

But the heavens and the Earth weren't ever joined. The universe was already tens of billions of lightyears across by the time the Earth even started to exist.

 

[ellenjanuary]

But the heavens and the Earth weren't ever joined. The universe was already tens of billions of lightyears across by the time the Earth even started to exist.

Man, it's poetry, dawg. First prophet, looked to the stars, toked on his spliff... Heavens and the Earth, man. That's where it's at. We're here. There is there... man, there is god...

Of course, all things make more sense with some Floyd playing in the background.

 

[Wombat]

Originally Posted by PolyHedral
"But the heavens and the Earth weren't ever joined. The universe was already tens of billions of lightyears across by the time the Earth even started to exist."

Sure it was..and for that 'matter'...so was we. The matter that went to make the heavens, earth and us was all joined....one thing...then clove ussunder...it got big...but it didn't go bang.

Man, it's poetry, dawg. First prophet, looked to the stars, toked on his spliff... Heavens and the Earth, man. That's where it's at. We're here. There is there... man, there is god...

Dude........Dude.....
You need something more potent than Hooter to start a religion.
Adam ( "First prophet") ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil-
Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (download torrent) - TPB
John M. Allegro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, all things make more sense with some Floyd playing in the background.

Dude....your mixing the wrong drugs with the wrong band and the wrong lyrics

"We are stardust...we are golden....Billion year old carbon....and we've got to get ourselves...back to the garden"

[youtube]HKdsRWhyH30[/youtube]
YouTube - CROSBY, STILLS, NASH Woodstock 1971