being a person who first began as a believer in the hypothesis in science, I began wondering about the big bang, and who lit the fuse. I find them linked in so many ways (creation-wise) that one could not exist without the other; whether I follow causality and all hypothesis of science, or Who made it. I enjoy the hypothesis of science in all its wonder, but I am amazed that one Person could put it all together. I believe in both: the possibilities are endless. Man's curiosity and God's universe
The science in this is so far off that it's not even funny, and the video cherry picks HORRIBLY to make christian dogma sound believable or match with it.
The science in this is so far off that it's not even funny, and the video cherry picks HORRIBLY to make christian dogma sound believable or match with it.
Hell yeah, the earths magnetic field has taken occupation of the moon and since then it is surrounding earth. From all theories i've heard so far this is the most ludicrous one. I'm sort of amused of such a big amount of physical misunderstanding.
At last any theory can be modified to fit the point of view. But at least people should try not to fool others by ignoring prooven facts.
@deichshaf Combination of Energies found in the cores of the Earth and the Moon is the power source for the revolutions and even effects the earths tide. Unless you think it is all just pure Magic? (ludicrous)
This video was Not to made to fit a specific point of view. In fact the acquisition of the moon was the 1 of 2 parts of the Bible that did NOT match the order that science reviles. The other is the time line of 7 days
Often Scientists Facts/Theory are are often disputed by each other
@WhiteTreeProd Magnetic field on earth depends on the moon - without the moon there wouldn't be hardly any magnetic field of the known size. Maybe earth has take occupation of the moon but if so it could only happen through gravity. The same for the tides on the oceans: Only gravity and not magnetic fields could perform this.
Materials found on both surfaces and cores suggest, that the moon is the result of a major collision between two planets.
I miss the proof for your theory. Maybe i can not come up with a proof for mine either, but from all theories "mine" has better arguments. There are visible activities in space that support it clearly because these activities follow physical laws.
This perverted view regards selfishness, ruthlessness, conflict and murder as perfectly justified according to the survival of the fittest. It regards such feelings as compassion, love, affection and respect as obstacles that retard the process of evolution.
@chh5555: Darwinists and materialists alike maintain that man, the universe, and all it contains are all the products of blind chance. They claim that because they regard human beings as a species of animal, then relationships between humans should be animalistic in nature.
Darwinists can hereafter tell whatever tales they like, engage in whatever endless propaganda they please and put as much pressure on as they care, but it will still be impossible to keep evolution alive. Evolution has collapsed, and Darwinism is dead. It is now time to bury it. Our advice to evolutionists is to abandon their pointless efforts, behave in a rational and logical way and accept that Darwinism is dead, rather than ignore the scientific data.
@xukun0 and you of course have proof for your conclusion, do you?
There is many of so called evidence for any theory but only one can deliver such thing as visible events and activities that, if not proof then at least support the theory that there has been a "big bang".
Telling someone he's false only because you don't understand or accept his theory can not be the right way. Just accept both sides but do not try to convert people in such an aggressive way.
@deichshaf at least support the theory that there has been a "big bang".
____
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
@1tabligh Have you EVER read science publications on the big-bang-theory? If yo, why do you ask this question? Clearly according to this theory there must have been something before the big bang.
I only was stating, that what the video shows about aquisition of the moon was ridiculous. I'm not going to discuss the whole big bang theory versus natural design because my knowledge on these is not very vast.
@deichshaf We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
@1tabligh That's what i meant with interpretation. I can use the bible as well for proof of the fact, that god wants war instead of love and peace. But does this 'fact' become true if i do so? Does it?
Believe what ever you want to believe. But do NOT try to convert me.
@azmanabdula I originally made this video to show how far off the bible was on the facts of science. To my surprise I found it very parallel in the order in which each stage occurred. The 7 days this is obviously way off and the acquisition of the moon but otherwise the same order. The thing that really surprised me was the Expansion of the earth is a fairly new concept in science but is there in the bible. Who really knows if there is a god or not, we won't truly know until we kick the bucket.
@chh5555: Its pointless to disquess some one who doesn't know his creator,sustainer,evolver!!! U UNDERSTAND??? Read the holy Qur'an and then understand ok!!! Don't listen to the madia use your brain dont be brainwashed by the madia (nonmuslims) okey? There is no other religion eceptable in the side of Allah!!! Islam is the way and the success in this life and the hereafter!!! do you know the purpose of life? Allah gave you brain,eyes,ears,mouth hands,legs etc so give thnx to Allah the evolver!!!
@xukun0 Islam=ignorance. Religion is obsolete mythology. A sociological fossil from the time when we did not understand the physical processes that are at work in the Universe. Religion became obsolete when we discovered the scientific method of obtaining knowledge. Pope Paul V tried in vain to stop the spread of science when he imprisoned Galileo. Enjoy your mythology in private but do not interfere with the process of rational thought and experiment.
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the CREATOR, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents.
@xukun0 It is pointless to discuss with someone who is brain washed. The koran contains no scientific data what so ever. Religion is mythology created by primitive man to explain the things that seemed mysterious to him. Science has made that mythology obsolete. If yoy wish to follow it anyway that is your choice but PLEASE do not say the koran contains scientific information, you only make a fool of yourself.
The Quran speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake!!!
@xukun0 then why did they not proclaim any knowledge of the existence of these concepts when constructed.........were they not assured by their own faith.....like you are.....
If we continue: Thirdly the nebulae do not produce planets. Instead stars are formed gravitationally in the nebulae. Planets are only formed in the accretion disk of a forming star. So your interpretation of the existing information is not correct, not at all. That's why I suggested that you should do a little more research before making a video. You are guilty of misleading people.
.".Instead stars are formed gravitationally in the nebulae. Planets are only formed in the accretion disk of a forming star." So you made my point Nebula + Star = Planet
@WhiteTreeProd Well actually (correct me if I am wrong here) you propose that the Earth could have been formed independently in a nebula and then set in motion through space. In this regard I think we disagree and I don't see that I have supported your claim.
@chh5555 the distance from the sun for each planet depends on its density. The more dense the planet closer is to the sun. Our solar system is made up of planets with various different percentages of elements. So they didn't all come from the same source. The source that powers the planets rotations around the sun or within the nucleus of each planet and with that of the sun itself. each planet is caught in the Sun's Web. How do you propose the planets got there?
@WhiteTreeProd Your observation regarding density is correct. The outer planets, the gas giants Jupiter Saturn Neptune and Uranus are mostly hydrogen and a little Helium and traces of other gases with small rock and ice cores. Computer modeling of the early solar system produces results that are very similar to reality. In other words the mechanisms, mostly involving gravity are well understood. Even distant planetary systems appear to have a density arrangement very similar to our own.
@chh5555 The information in this video is made from information found in many main stream sceince books and publications with time tested FACTS. and then compared with actual scriptures word by word from an other book called the Bible. I don't know were you get all of your information" Maybe that Book you want me to read" .
It is easy to throw out smart ass blanket statements on peoples research on how they are wrong with out any of your on fact to back it up.
@WhiteTreeProd The first major mistake you make is to call the Big Bang an explosion. That is a common and understandable misconception but it should be thought of as an expansion of space rather than an explosion. Secondly the stars and galaxies were not directly created by the Big Bang but instead have formed through the localized gravitational centralization of matter. That takes us through the first minute of your video.
@chh5555 I agree, I made a point of that inn the video. Science has proven that the universe is expanding but the big bang theory has holes in it. Like i pointed out in the video, the make-up of all the planet in our solar system alone are made up of vastly different combination's and percentages of elements which takes away the theory that they originated from a single source.
Nubula's according to scientists, compress many different combinations of elements to create a vast variety of stars
For years scientist had no idea where planets originated from. (they guessed they cam from big bang!) the Hubble telescope has documented pictures of planets and stars emerging from nebula's. If you look at pictures of Nebula's you will notice they are closely surrounded by a high concentration of stars/plants. According to scientist they are planet making machines. There is of now no other mechanism found in space that shows any other way to produce a planet.
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh If you are interested in learning about the actual processes then you can take an extension class in Cosmology at your local college or university. Just briefly I can tell you that the heavier elements (by that we mean just about everything except hydrogen and helium) that we find so abundant here on Earth are actually very very uncommon in the Universe as a whole. The only energy source that is capable of converting helium atoms into more complex atoms such as iron, is a super nova.
@chh5555 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
@1tabligh Actually no! Man can have "innate perceptions" as you call them. The early Greeks used this method. They came up with ideas based only on very base observations followed by intense introspection and thinking. Their results were often masterpieces of human thinking but they were not put to the test of experimentation. Aristotle's idea of the Universe stood for 2000 years before it was mathematically proven to be wrong. We have to go the scientific route if our destination is the truth.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
@1tabligh I agree! If we only expressed ourselves through logic the world would be a pretty boring place, no music, art, poetry etc etc. The problem here is that We have some historical texts, the bile, kora, torah etc etc that are works of poetry but some people want to you them as scientific texts! It just doesn't work! And when it doesn't work these people then say that the science must be wrong. That is the problem.
@chh5555 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of *mindless* matter?
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
@azmanabdula In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
stop trying to connect old sayings with new knowledge you look stupid why didnt the Koran teach us about water purification and how to obtain energy etc
@azmanabdula Agreed! There are so many videos here on youtube where some vague bit of poetry is recited as "proof" that the koran predicted the existence of black holes, quantum physics, whatever. It is utter nonsense and rubbish.
@zelda0521 We can indeed explain a great deal through science! God is definitely NOT a necessary component in scientific explanations. If you have a cultural reason to maintain a mythological belief system then there is absolutely no reason why you should not do so. By all means continue! Our cultural intricacies are rich and varied and in many cases beautiful and noble. But please try to keep it separate from science. They don't belong in the same room.
sure we can explain a lot of things, but as I said we can't explain the origin.
I attended a speech given by a Nobel prize winner and he talked about science cannot explain the origin of many things including the origin of natural laws and natural constants.
If you were brought up in a fundamentalist christian family and taught that god created the earth etc etc and if you don't believe it you will go to hell, then IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT that you don't have an open questioning approach. Science to you must seem like it is the devil trying to deceive us... is that so? If you really are interested in cosmology then there is a lot you can learn about it.
There is no such moon god! we all believe in one god! All religions originated with Allah and then people began to add or take away from the teachings so as to take control over each other.
There is no god but allah!!! He, Who perfected everything that He created - He started the creation of man from clay then he inculcated in him [i.e. man] the potential to reproduce through a drop of humble fluid then He embellished and fashioned him in due proportion; and breathed into him of His spirit and [thereby] developed in you [the abilities of] listening, vision and feeling.
in hindu it explains that lord shiva gives birth to stars (as explain in the video) and he explained concepts through christianity as well the ancient egyptians, mayans and other astrology cultures they believed in the samething showned here thousands of years ago and witches were also believers in the forces of nature so from the looks of it it seems every god known to man is responsible you cant credit just one for it :S
@xukun0 Are you proposing that as a scientific theory? I don't think there's much chance for that to make it through the experimentation and critical analysis but good luck with it!
[41:11] Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly.
In the 1950's, the big bang theory was first propounded by Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe and George Garnow, starting from the Einsteinian concept that the universe had to expand. This theory was the center of heated debate for many years. Materialist atheists in particular were dead set against this view, since they knew that the stories of Genesis in sacred scriptures would thus be vindicated
"And the sun constantly journeys towards a homing place for it and for the moon We have determined phases.(Koran 36:39)"
Modern science has found out that the sun rotates around its axis every 26 days and is continually on a journey in space towards its homing place, just like mentioned in the Koran 36:39. Also, the Koran is known to be the first book to mention the modern term "phase" associated with the moon.
@xukun0 Actually you are more than wrong! The Greeks knew all about the phases of the moon a thousand years before the koran was written. The Egyptians knew before the Greeks, and so on. Please don't come with nonsense about how the koran contains scientific information, that is insulting to the intelligence.
The day when We shall roll back the skies, like a scribe rolls up a written document. As We began the first creation, We shall surely repeat it. It is a promise (binding) upon us. Indeed it will happen." (Koran 21:104)The Koran mentions the movement of the sun. The sun's movement is not something that is evident to our eyes or experience but requires specialized equipment. The Koran states:
If the density of matter in the Universe is sufficiently large, gravitational forces will eventually cause the Universe to stop expanding, and then to start falling back in upon itself. If that happens, the Universe will end in a second cataclysmic event that cosmologists call The Big Crunch
The Koran describes the Big Crunch and the Cosmic Code in this statement.
This is exactly how the 'rejector' scientists envision the creation of the universe, from one piece which was then split [separated] by a 'big bang'. The Koran over 14 centuries before the "Big Bang" theory was presented confirmed the "common origin" or source of everything in the universe.
The single explosion theory does not seem logical, there are to many vast combinations of DIFFERENT elements out there to have all come from a single source.
Scientists have only very recently confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gasses. The Koran is more accurate in describing the gasses as "smoke" rather than the word "mist" used frequently by scientists as the gasses were hot.
The Koran mentions that at a stage in its origin, the universe was a "gaseous mass " (Koran 41:11). It uses the Arabic word Dukhan, which stands for smoke. A perfect analogy for gas and particles in suspension and the gasses being hot.
I found many similarities in various religions but I could not fit them in the 10 minute limit for Youtube. The Quran describes an expanding planet and the smoke you described, sounds most like a Nebula. Thank You for your comments.
Also he said: Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.
He said: "Thinking where Muhammad came from . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.
Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world's renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that 'smoke' material. God has said in the Quran:
Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...(Quran, 41:11)
Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same 'smoke,' we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.
There are still a lot of Christians out there who think otherwise. If Religion is going to survive then you should look at the nature as it is, rather then believing a God did it in a short period of time.
Wow ! a religious people who has a bit of intelligence between his ears.....this is what the scientists have been saying since Darwin. At least you don't believe this happen within six days and the earth is only six thousand years old ! I take my hat of to you !
how are we here wtf what kind of shit is this im just a dude
peepo9000 2 months ago
Wow, what a bunch of nonsense. You should be ashamed!
MrHoolits 4 months ago
being a person who first began as a believer in the hypothesis in science, I began wondering about the big bang, and who lit the fuse. I find them linked in so many ways (creation-wise) that one could not exist without the other; whether I follow causality and all hypothesis of science, or Who made it. I enjoy the hypothesis of science in all its wonder, but I am amazed that one Person could put it all together. I believe in both: the possibilities are endless. Man's curiosity and God's universe
maestroaxeman 4 months ago
The science in this is so far off that it's not even funny, and the video cherry picks HORRIBLY to make christian dogma sound believable or match with it.
Ryakki 5 months ago
The science in this is so far off that it's not even funny, and the video cherry picks HORRIBLY to make christian dogma sound believable or match with it.
Ryakki 5 months ago
how could this all happen by chance?
jwillxxxxx 5 months ago
the religion part seems to be correct
but the science part is way off..... WAY off.....so sad...
sabin97 8 months ago
I will never force some one to accept islam!!! It's useless if you force some one to believe anything!!! There is no god but allah!!!
xukun0 1 year ago
Hell yeah, the earths magnetic field has taken occupation of the moon and since then it is surrounding earth. From all theories i've heard so far this is the most ludicrous one. I'm sort of amused of such a big amount of physical misunderstanding.
At last any theory can be modified to fit the point of view. But at least people should try not to fool others by ignoring prooven facts.
deichshaf 1 year ago
@deichshaf Combination of Energies found in the cores of the Earth and the Moon is the power source for the revolutions and even effects the earths tide. Unless you think it is all just pure Magic? (ludicrous)
This video was Not to made to fit a specific point of view. In fact the acquisition of the moon was the 1 of 2 parts of the Bible that did NOT match the order that science reviles. The other is the time line of 7 days
Often Scientists Facts/Theory are are often disputed by each other
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd Magnetic field on earth depends on the moon - without the moon there wouldn't be hardly any magnetic field of the known size. Maybe earth has take occupation of the moon but if so it could only happen through gravity. The same for the tides on the oceans: Only gravity and not magnetic fields could perform this.
Materials found on both surfaces and cores suggest, that the moon is the result of a major collision between two planets.
deichshaf 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd
I miss the proof for your theory. Maybe i can not come up with a proof for mine either, but from all theories "mine" has better arguments. There are visible activities in space that support it clearly because these activities follow physical laws.
deichshaf 1 year ago
@chh5555: Darwin was brainless racist!!!
This perverted view regards selfishness, ruthlessness, conflict and murder as perfectly justified according to the survival of the fittest. It regards such feelings as compassion, love, affection and respect as obstacles that retard the process of evolution.
xukun0 1 year ago
@chh5555: Darwinists and materialists alike maintain that man, the universe, and all it contains are all the products of blind chance. They claim that because they regard human beings as a species of animal, then relationships between humans should be animalistic in nature.
xukun0 1 year ago
@chh5555: Darwinism Has Collapsed!!!
Darwinists can hereafter tell whatever tales they like, engage in whatever endless propaganda they please and put as much pressure on as they care, but it will still be impossible to keep evolution alive. Evolution has collapsed, and Darwinism is dead. It is now time to bury it. Our advice to evolutionists is to abandon their pointless efforts, behave in a rational and logical way and accept that Darwinism is dead, rather than ignore the scientific data.
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 and you of course have proof for your conclusion, do you?
There is many of so called evidence for any theory but only one can deliver such thing as visible events and activities that, if not proof then at least support the theory that there has been a "big bang".
Telling someone he's false only because you don't understand or accept his theory can not be the right way. Just accept both sides but do not try to convert people in such an aggressive way.
deichshaf 1 year ago
@deichshaf at least support the theory that there has been a "big bang".
____
If you will still persist in your ignorance at least assure me as to when this *big bang* created itself-whether it did it before it came into existence, or afterwards?
If you say afterwards, your assertion is absurd. Because it is impossible for a thing to create its own self when it was already created.
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh Have you EVER read science publications on the big-bang-theory? If yo, why do you ask this question? Clearly according to this theory there must have been something before the big bang.
I only was stating, that what the video shows about aquisition of the moon was ridiculous. I'm not going to discuss the whole big bang theory versus natural design because my knowledge on these is not very vast.
deichshaf 5 months ago
@deichshaf We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 5 months ago
The purpose of your assertion would be that the *big bang* made itself twice. It would mean that its first endeavours consisted in creating itself, and when it was quite ready and created, it created itself again. This is the most *absurd* and impossible theory-the acquisition of what is already acquired.
If you say that it created itself before it came into existence, it is really *stupid*. Because it was absolutely nothing before it came into existence.
1tabligh 5 months ago
How is it possible for a non-existing thing to create another thing (*big bang*) ? You consider my belief in an existing thing (God) that creates another non-existing thing (*big bang*) as absurd. But you do not consider your own, as to the non-existing thing having the power to create an already existing thing,(*big bang*) as absurd and stupid.
Be yourself the judge, and tell me whose theory is absurd and irrational.?
1tabligh 5 months ago
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth (Universe) were joined together as one unit (atom) of creation, before we clove (exploded) them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
The Quran 21:30
1tabligh 5 months ago
@1tabligh That's what i meant with interpretation. I can use the bible as well for proof of the fact, that god wants war instead of love and peace. But does this 'fact' become true if i do so? Does it?
Believe what ever you want to believe. But do NOT try to convert me.
deichshaf 5 months ago
insanity breeds?
if every concept is true..........who's wrong?
and for that matter whats wrong?
since your "god" made it!
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula I originally made this video to show how far off the bible was on the facts of science. To my surprise I found it very parallel in the order in which each stage occurred. The 7 days this is obviously way off and the acquisition of the moon but otherwise the same order. The thing that really surprised me was the Expansion of the earth is a fairly new concept in science but is there in the bible. Who really knows if there is a god or not, we won't truly know until we kick the bucket.
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@chh5555: Its pointless to disquess some one who doesn't know his creator,sustainer,evolver!!! U UNDERSTAND??? Read the holy Qur'an and then understand ok!!! Don't listen to the madia use your brain dont be brainwashed by the madia (nonmuslims) okey? There is no other religion eceptable in the side of Allah!!! Islam is the way and the success in this life and the hereafter!!! do you know the purpose of life? Allah gave you brain,eyes,ears,mouth hands,legs etc so give thnx to Allah the evolver!!!
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 but i know for a fact that if i join and didn't like it.(Islam)...i will be ordered to be Murdered........
not that you would care anyways................
so tell me........who invented the language......in which you speak "the word of Allah"
-Peely
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@xukun0 Islam=ignorance. Religion is obsolete mythology. A sociological fossil from the time when we did not understand the physical processes that are at work in the Universe. Religion became obsolete when we discovered the scientific method of obtaining knowledge. Pope Paul V tried in vain to stop the spread of science when he imprisoned Galileo. Enjoy your mythology in private but do not interfere with the process of rational thought and experiment.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555:
CREATOR IS THE AUTHOR OF THE QURAN
The only logical answer to the question as to who could have mentioned all these scientific facts 1400 years ago before they were discovered, is exactly the same answer initially given by the atheist or any person, to the question who will be the first person who will be able to tell the mechanism of the unknown object. It is the CREATOR, the producer, the Manufacturer of the whole universe and its contents.
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 It is pointless to discuss with someone who is brain washed. The koran contains no scientific data what so ever. Religion is mythology created by primitive man to explain the things that seemed mysterious to him. Science has made that mythology obsolete. If yoy wish to follow it anyway that is your choice but PLEASE do not say the koran contains scientific information, you only make a fool of yourself.
chh5555 1 year ago
The Quran speaks about hundreds of things that were not known to men at the time of its revelation. Only in three options the result is .0017%. I leave it upto you, to work out the probability if all the hundreds of the unknown facts were guesses, the chances of all of them being correct guesses simultaneously and there being not a single wrong guess. It is beyond human capacity to make all correct guesses without a single mistake!!!
xukun0 1 year ago
@xukun0 then why did they not proclaim any knowledge of the existence of these concepts when constructed.........were they not assured by their own faith.....like you are.....
-Peely
azmanabdula 1 year ago
If we continue: Thirdly the nebulae do not produce planets. Instead stars are formed gravitationally in the nebulae. Planets are only formed in the accretion disk of a forming star. So your interpretation of the existing information is not correct, not at all. That's why I suggested that you should do a little more research before making a video. You are guilty of misleading people.
chh5555 1 year ago
.".Instead stars are formed gravitationally in the nebulae. Planets are only formed in the accretion disk of a forming star." So you made my point Nebula + Star = Planet
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd Well actually (correct me if I am wrong here) you propose that the Earth could have been formed independently in a nebula and then set in motion through space. In this regard I think we disagree and I don't see that I have supported your claim.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 the distance from the sun for each planet depends on its density. The more dense the planet closer is to the sun. Our solar system is made up of planets with various different percentages of elements. So they didn't all come from the same source. The source that powers the planets rotations around the sun or within the nucleus of each planet and with that of the sun itself. each planet is caught in the Sun's Web. How do you propose the planets got there?
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd Your observation regarding density is correct. The outer planets, the gas giants Jupiter Saturn Neptune and Uranus are mostly hydrogen and a little Helium and traces of other gases with small rock and ice cores. Computer modeling of the early solar system produces results that are very similar to reality. In other words the mechanisms, mostly involving gravity are well understood. Even distant planetary systems appear to have a density arrangement very similar to our own.
chh5555 1 year ago
Why do you bother making a vid ifyou don't have a clue as to what you are talking about??? Read a book will ya?
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 The information in this video is made from information found in many main stream sceince books and publications with time tested FACTS. and then compared with actual scriptures word by word from an other book called the Bible. I don't know were you get all of your information" Maybe that Book you want me to read" .
It is easy to throw out smart ass blanket statements on peoples research on how they are wrong with out any of your on fact to back it up.
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd The first major mistake you make is to call the Big Bang an explosion. That is a common and understandable misconception but it should be thought of as an expansion of space rather than an explosion. Secondly the stars and galaxies were not directly created by the Big Bang but instead have formed through the localized gravitational centralization of matter. That takes us through the first minute of your video.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 I agree, I made a point of that inn the video. Science has proven that the universe is expanding but the big bang theory has holes in it. Like i pointed out in the video, the make-up of all the planet in our solar system alone are made up of vastly different combination's and percentages of elements which takes away the theory that they originated from a single source.
Nubula's according to scientists, compress many different combinations of elements to create a vast variety of stars
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
@WhiteTreeProd references baby.....references.......you call out this poor bloke.....
ill call you out.......where did you get this information..........
ps i want the site...........
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula
For years scientist had no idea where planets originated from. (they guessed they cam from big bang!) the Hubble telescope has documented pictures of planets and stars emerging from nebula's. If you look at pictures of Nebula's you will notice they are closely surrounded by a high concentration of stars/plants. According to scientist they are planet making machines. There is of now no other mechanism found in space that shows any other way to produce a planet.
WhiteTreeProd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WhiteTreeProd "For years scientist had no idea where planets originated from. (they guessed they cam from big bang!)"
i cant believe you said that...........
anyways.........
why the sudden need for a god.....when the world went on without us (animals) for about 2 billion years.........
if i have misinterpreted any of your statements , i apologize......
-Peely
azmanabdula 1 year ago
How can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh If you are interested in learning about the actual processes then you can take an extension class in Cosmology at your local college or university. Just briefly I can tell you that the heavier elements (by that we mean just about everything except hydrogen and helium) that we find so abundant here on Earth are actually very very uncommon in the Universe as a whole. The only energy source that is capable of converting helium atoms into more complex atoms such as iron, is a super nova.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 Before he enters the realm of science and knowledge with all its concerns, man is able to perceive certain truths by means of these innate perceptions. But after entering the sphere of science and philosophy and filling his *brain* with various proofs and deductions, he may forget his natural and innate perceptions or begin to doubt them. It is for this reason that when man moves beyond his innate nature to delineate a belief, differences begin to appear.
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh Actually no! Man can have "innate perceptions" as you call them. The early Greeks used this method. They came up with ideas based only on very base observations followed by intense introspection and thinking. Their results were often masterpieces of human thinking but they were not put to the test of experimentation. Aristotle's idea of the Universe stood for 2000 years before it was mathematically proven to be wrong. We have to go the scientific route if our destination is the truth.
chh5555 1 year ago
God and Empirical Logic.
One of the most destructive and misleading factors in thoughts concerning God is to restrict one's thought to the "logic" of the empirical sciences and to *fail* to recognize the *limits* and boundaries of that "logic".
Is that which is necessary in essence and which is considered the first source of existence matter itself or something else beyond the limits of matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh I agree! If we only expressed ourselves through logic the world would be a pretty boring place, no music, art, poetry etc etc. The problem here is that We have some historical texts, the bile, kora, torah etc etc that are works of poetry but some people want to you them as scientific texts! It just doesn't work! And when it doesn't work these people then say that the science must be wrong. That is the problem.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow fortuitously emerged out of *mindless* matter?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "should first produce themselves" tell me how you came to this conclusion.....
if only we could view space in more than 3-D, which is absurd.... "i know" : )
but before H2O, its was water.......then we learned more about it.....and it was refined....
but may i be honest here.....because we cannot understand the big bang now......doesn't mean we wont find out......
but if conclude that god made everything.......according to you he did : )
go with me here.....
how did he do it....
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula
Matter or God?
Take your choice!
Matter and Motion.
Matter is in continuous motion and constant development. This is a fact on which we all agree. Further, matter requires a cause that moves it. This is another fact admitted with no disputation. The most basic issue regarding the philosophy of motion is this. Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?
1tabligh 1 year ago
@1tabligh "Can the matter in motion be the cause or agent of its motion?"
why would it be?
remember......the 4 forces we know could have been different at the beginning....
a unified field theory!
what are you connecting?
-Peely
azmanabdula 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@azmanabdula In other words, that which moves is the subject of motion, while the mover is the cause of motion. Can the same thing in the same respect be simultaneously a subject of motion and a cause of it?
1tabligh 1 year ago
stop trying to connect old sayings with new knowledge you look stupid why didnt the Koran teach us about water purification and how to obtain energy etc
azmanabdula 1 year ago
@azmanabdula Agreed! There are so many videos here on youtube where some vague bit of poetry is recited as "proof" that the koran predicted the existence of black holes, quantum physics, whatever. It is utter nonsense and rubbish.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555 oh so vague........and this is evidence?
......wouldn't it be compared to saying.......
"this dirt is dirty............time travel must exist!"
or something as crazy as that........
: )
peace mate
ps "It is utter nonsense and rubbish." biggest understatement ive heard all day! : )
azmanabdula 1 year ago
afresh: No punctuation, inaccurate spelling, no science, no logic,. Please try to cerebrate.
purbrookian 1 year ago
the most important thing is to understand we can't explain the origin of anyhting without God. Big deal if we don't know "how" God created.
zelda0521 2 years ago
Comment removed
chh5555 1 year ago
@zelda0521 We can indeed explain a great deal through science! God is definitely NOT a necessary component in scientific explanations. If you have a cultural reason to maintain a mythological belief system then there is absolutely no reason why you should not do so. By all means continue! Our cultural intricacies are rich and varied and in many cases beautiful and noble. But please try to keep it separate from science. They don't belong in the same room.
chh5555 1 year ago
@chh5555
sure we can explain a lot of things, but as I said we can't explain the origin.
I attended a speech given by a Nobel prize winner and he talked about science cannot explain the origin of many things including the origin of natural laws and natural constants.
zelda0521 1 year ago
DNA was found in the rock? say what?
Shadofx 2 years ago
Comment removed
chh5555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Shadofx No one has said that!
If you were brought up in a fundamentalist christian family and taught that god created the earth etc etc and if you don't believe it you will go to hell, then IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT that you don't have an open questioning approach. Science to you must seem like it is the devil trying to deceive us... is that so? If you really are interested in cosmology then there is a lot you can learn about it.
chh5555 1 year ago
there is no expoletion god made the world water us we were never monkeys god made us from the earth!
afresh954 2 years ago
There is no such moon god! we all believe in one god! All religions originated with Allah and then people began to add or take away from the teachings so as to take control over each other.
xukun0 2 years ago
There is no god but allah!!! He, Who perfected everything that He created - He started the creation of man from clay then he inculcated in him [i.e. man] the potential to reproduce through a drop of humble fluid then He embellished and fashioned him in due proportion; and breathed into him of His spirit and [thereby] developed in you [the abilities of] listening, vision and feeling.
xukun0 2 years ago
hail lord shiva :DDDD
sonyan1191 2 years ago 2
in hindu it explains that lord shiva gives birth to stars (as explain in the video) and he explained concepts through christianity as well the ancient egyptians, mayans and other astrology cultures they believed in the samething showned here thousands of years ago and witches were also believers in the forces of nature so from the looks of it it seems every god known to man is responsible you cant credit just one for it :S
sonyan1191 2 years ago
@xukun0 Are you proposing that as a scientific theory? I don't think there's much chance for that to make it through the experimentation and critical analysis but good luck with it!
chh5555 1 year ago
Chapter: 21, Verse: 30
Have not "those who disbelieve" known heavens and earth were of one piece,
We parted them and, We made every living thing of water
Will they not then believe?
xukun0 3 years ago
Far too vague. Nice try.
Thisismyrofl 2 years ago
Universe at its Infancy
[41:11] Then He turned to the sky, when it was still gas, and said to it, and to the earth, "Come into existence, willingly or unwillingly." They said, "We come willingly.
xukun0 3 years ago
In the 1950's, the big bang theory was first propounded by Ralph Alpher, Hans Bethe and George Garnow, starting from the Einsteinian concept that the universe had to expand. This theory was the center of heated debate for many years. Materialist atheists in particular were dead set against this view, since they knew that the stories of Genesis in sacred scriptures would thus be vindicated
xukun0 3 years ago
"And the sun constantly journeys towards a homing place for it and for the moon We have determined phases.(Koran 36:39)"
Modern science has found out that the sun rotates around its axis every 26 days and is continually on a journey in space towards its homing place, just like mentioned in the Koran 36:39. Also, the Koran is known to be the first book to mention the modern term "phase" associated with the moon.
xukun0 3 years ago
@xukun0 Actually you are more than wrong! The Greeks knew all about the phases of the moon a thousand years before the koran was written. The Egyptians knew before the Greeks, and so on. Please don't come with nonsense about how the koran contains scientific information, that is insulting to the intelligence.
chh5555 1 year ago
The day when We shall roll back the skies, like a scribe rolls up a written document. As We began the first creation, We shall surely repeat it. It is a promise (binding) upon us. Indeed it will happen." (Koran 21:104)The Koran mentions the movement of the sun. The sun's movement is not something that is evident to our eyes or experience but requires specialized equipment. The Koran states:
xukun0 3 years ago
If the density of matter in the Universe is sufficiently large, gravitational forces will eventually cause the Universe to stop expanding, and then to start falling back in upon itself. If that happens, the Universe will end in a second cataclysmic event that cosmologists call The Big Crunch
The Koran describes the Big Crunch and the Cosmic Code in this statement.
xukun0 3 years ago
The Koran talks about an "expanding" universe centuries before scientists described it:
And the sky We built it with might, and we cause the expansion of it."(Koran 51:47)
xukun0 3 years ago
This is exactly how the 'rejector' scientists envision the creation of the universe, from one piece which was then split [separated] by a 'big bang'. The Koran over 14 centuries before the "Big Bang" theory was presented confirmed the "common origin" or source of everything in the universe.
How do we explain this information in the Koran?
xukun0 3 years ago
The single explosion theory does not seem logical, there are to many vast combinations of DIFFERENT elements out there to have all come from a single source.
WhiteTreeProd 3 years ago
@xukun0 We explain it as poetry, prose and mythology and all attempts to find "scientific" information in it is called after construction.
chh5555 1 year ago
The Koran gives an accurate visual description of the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe. The Koran states
Do not the rejecters see that the heavens and earth were one unit then we split [or separated] them apart..." (Koran 21:30)
xukun0 3 years ago
How could Muhammad, who lived 1400 years back, have composed this material? He could not have, even if he had all the help in the world, at the time.
xukun0 3 years ago
Scientists have only very recently confirmed that the universe did indeed originate from a gaseous mass composed of hydrogen and helium, a big mass of hot gasses. The Koran is more accurate in describing the gasses as "smoke" rather than the word "mist" used frequently by scientists as the gasses were hot.
xukun0 3 years ago
The Koran mentions that at a stage in its origin, the universe was a "gaseous mass " (Koran 41:11). It uses the Arabic word Dukhan, which stands for smoke. A perfect analogy for gas and particles in suspension and the gasses being hot.
xukun0 3 years ago
no one knows what happens in the universe but allah,he is the one who created the heaven and the earth. allahu akbar
xukun0 3 years ago
I found many similarities in various religions but I could not fit them in the 10 minute limit for Youtube. The Quran describes an expanding planet and the smoke you described, sounds most like a Nebula. Thank You for your comments.
WhiteTreeProd 3 years ago
Also he said: Somebody who did not know something about nuclear physics fourteen hundred years ago could not, I think, be in a position to find out from his own mind, for instance, that the earth and the heavens had the same origin.
xukun0 3 years ago
He said: "Thinking where Muhammad came from . I think it is almost impossible that he could have known about things like the common origin of the universe, because scientists have only found out within the last few years, with very complicated and advanced technological methods, that this is the case.
xukun0 3 years ago
Dr. Alfred Kroner is one of the world's renowned geologists. He is Professor of Geology and the Chairman of the Department of Geology at the Institute of Geosciences, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
xukun0 3 years ago
Then out of this homogeneous 'smoke,' they formed and separated from each other. God has said in the Quran:
Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?...(Quran, 21:30)
xukun0 3 years ago
The illuminating stars we see at night were, just as was the whole universe, in that 'smoke' material. God has said in the Quran:
Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke...(Quran, 41:11)
Because the earth and the heavens above (the sun, the moon, stars, planets, galaxies, etc.) have been formed from this same 'smoke,' we conclude that the earth and the heavens were one connected entity.
xukun0 3 years ago
tnx !
lamissa11 3 years ago
There are still a lot of Christians out there who think otherwise. If Religion is going to survive then you should look at the nature as it is, rather then believing a God did it in a short period of time.
ikinmoore 3 years ago
Wow ! a religious people who has a bit of intelligence between his ears.....this is what the scientists have been saying since Darwin. At least you don't believe this happen within six days and the earth is only six thousand years old ! I take my hat of to you !
ikinmoore 3 years ago
the 7days in the bible are not days as we know it but periods of time. this allows time for the dinosaurs and all the creation of the universe
themasteratarms 3 years ago