Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Scientific evidence in Islam? Age of the universe, the Big Bang and the Expansion.

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Gravity is a law? For the ninetieth time, I accept that.

    I'm not even going to bother getting onto whether or not the universe was created or not, we've already seen how productive that conversation is.
    Yes, you kept denying the universe had a beginning.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    How does an egg not have a polar axis?


    They're near as dammit the same shape, a normal egg is just a little more pointed at one end (the taglion). They essentially have the same structure. It is prolate, like a chicken egg. As stated, this is because it's polar diameter is longer than its equatorial diameter.
    Who defines a polar axis?



    Where is the polar axis of this stone? Like I said, man gives an object its polar axis (excluding the earth, that is given it due its axis of rotation but neither the egg nor stone have an axis of rotation).

    So, if we leave the ostrich egg how it is after being laid, it will be a oblate spheroid, just like the earth as equatorial diameter is longer than its polar.
    • 43 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Yes, you kept denying the universe had a beginning.
    At very most I said we cannot know what occurred prior to the big bang, I never outright denied the universe had a beginning. What I did reject was your assertion that the universe must have been created because of the circular reasoning you were bafflingly unaware of.

    Like I said, I have no idea to waste my time on this topic again.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If I compile a massive book brimming with theories on why things are the way they are, will you bet against the odds and claim that none of them are likely to be correct, even thanks to sheer chance?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Wrong on it having no polar axis and not being able to determine its poles.

    Right on the "same shape" part, but the only difference is a regular egg is slightly more pointed at one end. The ostrich egg is still more pointed at one end than the other, they're essentially the same. You can have different sizes and slightly different shapes, and still be oblate or prolate as it's due to equatorial and polar diameters. And of course the Earth's an oblate spheroid.
    No they are not.

    below is a normal egg



    Below, ostrich eggs




    I can barely make sense of this. It's not to do with vertical or horizontal, the poles remain the same no matter how it's rotated. If you take an oblate spheroid and turn it by 90 degrees, it's still oblate because the poles are in the same relative position.
    Yes, the poles remain the same but who defines the poles of an egg? Just like who defines the poles of a stone.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    At very most I said we cannot know what occurred prior to the big bang, I never outright denied the universe had a beginning. What I did reject was your assertion that the universe must have been created because of the circular reasoning you were bafflingly unaware of.

    Like I said, I have no idea to waste my time on this topic again.
    Yes, you tried to avoid that the universe had a begging (well to me at least) but I caught you out admitting it to the other girl, and thats when the debate came to an end.

    For something to come into existence, it has to be created by something, as something can not be created from nothing.

    Thats a sign of a lazy mind giving it no thought.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Yes, you kept denying the universe had a beginning.
    It's funny really. No matter how complex this argument tries to make itself, it can always be broken down into a very simple question of logic.

    There are two possibilities here.
    * Reality (a "something") needs a creator (also a "something") to exist.
    * Reality (a "something") doesn't need a creator to exist.

    If existence can only be preceded by the existence of something else, then you've got a closed paradox on your hands. A four-sided triangle.

    I'll leave you to finish off the process of elimination.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    A lazy mind is one that decides to attribute something we don't know instantly to God, when there may explanations that we simply do not know. In fact, the invocation for a supernatural being to solve all of our problems is not only lazy, but it can also be dangerous to the scientific progression of society.

    Oh and what's more lazy than getting to the question of 'But surely God has to have a creator by your logic...?' and answering with 'OH NO, God isn't created because my holy book said so and it literally wouldn't make sense otherwise'. :facepalm2:
    • 43 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Yes, you tried to avoid that the universe had a begging (well to me at least) but I caught you out admitting it to the other girl, and thats when the debate came to an end.
    Feel free to quote me on that.

    For something to come into existence, it has to be created by something,
    And we're back to the proposition you never proved.

    as something can not be created from nothing.
    This is precisely how you define your god.

    Thats a sign of a lazy mind giving it no thought.
    If you say so :rolleyes:
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    No they are not.

    below is a normal egg



    Below, ostrich eggs






    Yes, the poles remain the same but who defines the poles of an egg? Just like who defines the poles of a stone.
    Poles of an egg.

    "But the infundibulum is more than just a funnel-shaped structure to catch the egg. It also makes the first of the overlying egg coats, the chalazae. These are the suspensory ligaments of the yolk. If you break an egg carefully into a bowl, you'll these as whitish stringy material on opposite poles of the egg" (http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/c...ab29/lab29.htm)

    Now we've established the chalazae are at the poles of the egg. Let us look at the chalazae.



    As we can see, they're running through the longest diameter of the egg. The egg therefore has a polar diameter longer than its equatorial diameter.

    "The Chalazae: As the egg goes down through the oviduct, it is continually rotating within the spiraling tube. This movement twists the structural fibers (called the chalazae)" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...cken/egg.shtml)



    Where is the polar axis of this stone? Like I said, man gives an object its polar axis (excluding the earth, that is given it due its axis of rotation but neither the egg nor stone have an axis of rotation).
    I'd guess it doesn't have one as it's not a conic section.

    And as we've seen from the image above, some of the internal contents of the egg do rotate around the polar axis. It can be viewed here as well. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...ort=objectonly

    I think I'm done. I've just spent far too long researching eggs. I need a break.
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Poles of an egg.

    "But the infundibulum is more than just a funnel-shaped structure to catch the egg. It also makes the first of the overlying egg coats, the chalazae. These are the suspensory ligaments of the yolk. If you break an egg carefully into a bowl, you'll these as whitish stringy material on opposite poles of the egg" (http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/c...ab29/lab29.htm)

    Now we've established the chalazae are at the poles of the egg. Let us look at the chalazae.



    As we can see, they're running through the longest diameter of the egg. The egg therefore has a polar diameter longer than its equatorial diameter.

    "The Chalazae: As the egg goes down through the oviduct, it is continually rotating within the spiraling tube. This movement twists the structural fibers (called the chalazae)" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...cken/egg.shtml)





    I'd guess it doesn't have one as it's not a conic section.

    And as we've seen from the image above, some of the internal contents of the egg do rotate around the polar axis. It can be viewed here as well. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...ort=objectonly

    I think I'm done. I've just spent far too long researching eggs. I need a break.
    Clearly you're entering into the wrong profession.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Who defines a polar axis?



    Where is the polar axis of this stone? Like I said, man gives an object its polar axis (excluding the earth, that is given it due its axis of rotation but neither the egg nor stone have an axis of rotation).

    So, if we leave the ostrich egg how it is after being laid, it will be a oblate spheroid, just like the earth as equatorial diameter is longer than its polar.
    The polar axis is defined by the axis of rotational symmetry. For the 9 millionth time. The rock has no axis of rotational symmetry and hence has no poles. An ostrich egg does. If you held the egg so that all you saw was a circle, the axis would go out of your eye and through the center of that circle. If you put it in an egg cup (a big one!) then the axis points up. If you lay it down on the table (as they are in the picture) then the axis is horizontal. The axis rotates as you rotate the egg. It's an intrinsic property. It's not an extrinsic property that depends on how it's oriented relative to things around it, or how it spins or anything else like that.

    Seriously. You'll never see this. You don't appreciate that this can only be seen by thinking in 3D. 2D images don't capture this distinction. To really exaggerate it, an oblate spheroid is kind of like a smartie but a prolate one is kind of like one of these magnets: http://www.agathatoys.co.uk/shopimag...netic-buzz.jpg You can't just rotate one into the other. That's about as clear as I can make this. It feels like trying to argue that 0.9 recurring = 1. I know it is (and I'm 100% certain) but the other person just doesn't get it and probably never will.

    All I see is your religious mindset making you think in this incorrect way. For you, the Quran has to be correct on this detail and as a result you think oblate and prolate spheroids are the same (differing only by a rotation). But you're wrong. Sad thing is, the Quran doesn't even have to be wrong here. It's perfectly natural that the author would compare the Earth with some readily available round object. An ostrich egg is much rounder than other eggs so it makes sense.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by King-Panther)
    Yes, why?
    now tell me have you actually studied hadith properly, as in got yourself several copies of sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?
    have you studied whole of Quran properly, with translations or maybe learnt arabic and then studied?

    If not , you are not exactly qualified to argue with these people, since you yourself dont have complete knowledge of Islam.

    I'm guessing you're playing music in background on youtube while reading this, right? shame on you. First change yourself, then teach others. I'm not saying that you dont call others to Islam, I'm saying you dont argue about stuff you dont have complete info about. I mean you dont have complete knowledge about math/physics etc and you dont have complete knowledge about Islam either, yet here you are "defending" Islam...You spend hours on TSR, doing what? complete waste of time brother. Stop this non-sense and get back to praying and studying and learning Quran, Hadith and if possible, Arabic language.

    And dont take this in a negative way like most pakistanis including me do...
    This is good advice I'm giving you.

    Thank you. Allah Hafiz.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Facticity)
    There are errors, you may think that there aren't but there are <--- now, what seperates what you've said from this statement. Ignoring whether I believe it or not, you've yet to provide any objective and factual i.e. NOT an Islamic source which BACK UP the Islamic source. A lot of people provide pretty unbias, factual information against such claims of perfection, I have yet to receive any unbias information in favour of Qur'anic perfection. Its only ever "this guy reverted" "this islamic scientist believes" etc. Without some unbiased and factual information (much of which counters your claims and have been left un countered by pro-Qur'anic perfection arguments) I doubt you'll convince someone of the Qur'ans perfection. The many threads in the past on TSR are testament to this. So no, I don't want a video from an islamic source, I want an unbias piece of science which correlates perfectly with everything the Qur'an says. If it is so simple and correct, it shouldn't be an issue - just whack out the nearest science textbook and putting it next to the Qur'an should give us some pretty inline views - the fact that it doesn't, surely is an issue?
    If you watch the video you'll see it from 2 different points of view!...you can think there are mistakes, but i guess we'll find out soon whos right and whos wrong!
    • 35 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riz10)
    If you watch the video you'll see it from 2 different points of view!...you can think there are mistakes, but i guess we'll find out soon whos right and whos wrong!
    Unless we're both wrong. Nothing could happen, in which case, we'll never know
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xXxiKillxXx)
    I'm not convinced by your reasoning. You are telling me in the 1400 years the current form of Islam has existed, that no-one has even attempted to disprove it properly?

    Especially considering its a religion of more than 1 billion followers...
    Many religions are much older, and have had more adherents.

    If longevity of religion or number of follows is 'proof' that it is correct, then my goodness there have been a lot of correct religions!
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PandyAndy)
    Poles of an egg.

    "But the infundibulum is more than just a funnel-shaped structure to catch the egg. It also makes the first of the overlying egg coats, the chalazae. These are the suspensory ligaments of the yolk. If you break an egg carefully into a bowl, you'll these as whitish stringy material on opposite poles of the egg" (http://www.vetmed.vt.edu/education/c...ab29/lab29.htm)

    Now we've established the chalazae are at the poles of the egg. Let us look at the chalazae.



    As we can see, they're running through the longest diameter of the egg. The egg therefore has a polar diameter longer than its equatorial diameter.

    "The Chalazae: As the egg goes down through the oviduct, it is continually rotating within the spiraling tube. This movement twists the structural fibers (called the chalazae)" (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...cken/egg.shtml)





    I'd guess it doesn't have one as it's not a conic section.

    And as we've seen from the image above, some of the internal contents of the egg do rotate around the polar axis. It can be viewed here as well. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NB...ort=objectonly

    I think I'm done. I've just spent far too long researching eggs. I need a break.
    Kudo's on the research. Although that has to do with the rotation of an egg yoke, as the egg itself does not have an axis of rotation because it doesn't rotate.

    However, I was misinformed, according to SsEe, the axis of rotational symmetry depends on symmetry, hence the name, so the object doesn't have to be rotating, So for an ordinary egg their would be only one line symmetrical due to its shape but an ostrich egg would have two.

    However, that would contradict:

    "A spheroid, or ellipsoid of revolution is a quadric surface obtained by rotating an ellipse about one of its principal axes; in other words, an ellipsoid with two equal semi-diameters.
    If the ellipse is rotated about its major axis, the result is a prolate (elongated) spheroid, like an American football or rugby ball. If the ellipse is rotated about its minor axis, the result is an oblate (flattened) spheroid, like a lentil. If the generating ellipse is a circle, the result is a sphere."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spheroid

    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    The polar axis is defined by the axis of rotational symmetry. For the 9 millionth time. The rock has no axis of rotational symmetry and hence has no poles. An ostrich egg does. If you held the egg so that all you saw was a circle, the axis would go out of your eye and through the center of that circle.
    What do you mean, pretend the egg is a circle? Which way do I hold it?

    If you put it in an egg cup (a big one!) then the axis points up. If you lay it down on the table (as they are in the picture) then the axis is horizontal. The axis rotates as you rotate the egg. It's an intrinsic property. It's not an extrinsic property that depends on how it's oriented relative to things around it, or how it spins or anything else like that.
    I get that, the pole remains the same regardless of how you put it. However, if a egg does not rotate, how do wee determine the axis?

    Seriously. You'll never see this. You don't appreciate that this can only be seen by thinking in 3D. 2D images don't capture this distinction. To really exaggerate it, an oblate spheroid is kind of like a smartie but a prolate one is kind of like one of these magnets: http://www.agathatoys.co.uk/shopimag...netic-buzz.jpg You can't just rotate one into the other. That's about as clear as I can make this. It feels like trying to argue that 0.9 recurring = 1. I know it is (and I'm 100% certain) but the other person just doesn't get it and probably never will.

    All I see is your religious mindset making you think in this incorrect way. For you, the Quran has to be correct on this detail and as a result you think oblate and prolate spheroids are the same (differing only by a rotation). But you're wrong. Sad thing is, the Quran doesn't even have to be wrong here. It's perfectly natural that the author would compare the Earth with some readily available round object. An ostrich egg is much rounder than other eggs so it makes sense.
    So how would you define the axis?
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zedeneye1)
    now tell me have you actually studied hadith properly, as in got yourself several copies of sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim?
    have you studied whole of Quran properly, with translations or maybe learnt arabic and then studied?

    If not , you are not exactly qualified to argue with these people, since you yourself dont have complete knowledge of Islam.

    I'm guessing you're playing music in background on youtube while reading this, right? shame on you. First change yourself, then teach others. I'm not saying that you dont call others to Islam, I'm saying you dont argue about stuff you dont have complete info about. I mean you dont have complete knowledge about math/physics etc and you dont have complete knowledge about Islam either, yet here you are "defending" Islam...You spend hours on TSR, doing what? complete waste of time brother. Stop this non-sense and get back to praying and studying and learning Quran, Hadith and if possible, Arabic language.

    And dont take this in a negative way like most pakistanis including me do...
    This is good advice I'm giving you.

    Thank you. Allah Hafiz.
    no, I understand where you're coming from.
    • 15 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gofre)
    Feel free to quote me on that.



    And we're back to the proposition you never proved.



    This is precisely how you define your god.



    If you say so :rolleyes:
    We've been over this, http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...egress&page=24

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: April 22, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.