The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dexter Sinister

#121

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 4th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

... many of such things that are verified by science like the sphericity of the earth, which was not known to people at that time; when they thought the earth is flat.

The Greeks knew the world is round over 700 years before the Quran was written. Look up Eratosthenes; he even produced a pretty good estimate of how big around it is.

Quote:

...things that they have not yet verified, is the existence of man, plant and animal on the planets.

If there were plants and animals anything like what inhabits the earth on other planets in the solar system, we'd know it by now. Humans in particular could not live on any planet but this one without elaborate and complex technology to sustain them, which would produce unmistakable signatures in the electromagnetic spectrum. If there's life of any sort on the other local planets, it certainly doesn't include men.

eanassir

#122

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 4th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

The Greeks knew the world is round over 700 years before the Quran was written. Look up Eratosthenes; he even produced a pretty good estimate of how big around it is.

This was a sophistacted thing of the Greek and might be older than them; but it was not a recognized truth publicly. Prophet Mohammed was not an Astronomer neither Scientist nor did he know to read and write Arabic even.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

If there were plants and animals anything like what inhabits the earth on other planets in the solar system, we'd know it by now. Humans in particular could not live on any planet but this one without elaborate and complex technology to sustain them, which would produce unmistakable signatures in the electromagnetic spectrum. If there's life of any sort on the other local planets, it certainly doesn't include men.

In the recent years only, they discovered some people living in some remote islands on this earth.

Dexter Sinister

#123

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

This was a sophistacted thing of the Greek and might be older than them...

No educated person has believed the earth is flat for about 2400 years, that's a myth perpetuated by certain anti-clerical thinkers of the 19th century. --
The Greeks knew of it, the Romans knew of it, the idea was certainly around in Mohammed's time among educated people, and he certainly had access to them. If he was illiterate as you say, who do you think wrote all that stuff down for him? There are much simpler explanations for Mohammed knowing the earth is round than invoking divine inspiration.

Quote:

In the recent years only, they discovered some people living in some remote islands on this earth.

True, but irrelevant. That's got nothing to do with humans living on other planets. You miss the point entirely. You don't need high tech to live on this planet, you do on any other one, and there's no sign of it.

darkbeaver

#124

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

There is difference in language and tongue among nations and between the ancient and the recent generations.
E.g. John (he is Prophet John Babtist, the cousin of Jesus Christ)
John in English
Yahya in Arabic (which means: he will live; I think he was weak at birth, and may be of low birth weight, because he was born to old man and old woman: his parents; and God gave him this name to assure his parents that "he sahll live")
Yokhanna in the original language.
In the Quran, God – be glorified – called him according to the meaning of the word and according to the Arabic tongue.
Another example:
Simon Peter:
His original name was:
Shamoon (in Hebrew)
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

Eanassir thank-you for the reply. I find it very interesting to follow the old names through time and cultures. What can you tell us about Sufism today? I have a feeling much of what you speak of has been thier tradition, at least in part.

eanassir

#125

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

No educated person has believed the earth is flat for about 2400 years, that's a myth perpetuated by certain anti-clerical thinkers of the 19th century. --
The Greeks knew of it, the Romans knew of it, the idea was certainly around in Mohammed's time among educated people, and he certainly had access to them. If he was illiterate as you say, who do you think wrote all that stuff down for him? There are much simpler explanations for Mohammed knowing the earth is round than invoking divine inspiration.
True, but irrelevant. That's got nothing to do with humans living on other planets. You miss the point entirely. You don't need high tech to live on this planet, you do on any other one, and there's no sign of it.

Refer to the journeys of Magellan and other early explorers and travelers.
I think the writer of the link, that you have given, has some exaggeration;
I mean the sphericity of the earth
is some academic statement recognized by some scientists and was denied by others; it was not a
recognized fact publicly. The Christian church denied it incessantly and tried or judged and punished by burning and imprisoning some of the scientists who
said the earth is not the centre of the universe according to Ptolemy (Was this one a prophet or apostle of God, so that they sanctified him to such extent?); I deem they might think that such
scientists was importing some Islamic teachings: what they called Heretics.

Moreover, Mohammed did not tell people by his own words (or prophetic traditions) that the earth is a
sphere; but later on we have become alert to the implication of the Quranic word كور i.e. make spherical: make
the day spherical on the night; because the process of the daylight takes place in the high atmospheric layer
giving it the spherical shape because the earth is a sphere. The old Muslims (till the recent centuries)
thought that
the night overlaps the day and the day overlaps the night, or they wound around each other, or they pursue
each other.

In addition, Mohammed did not learn how to read and write; there were a very little number of people at
that time who knew reading and writing; he heard the revelation from the angel, then knew it by heart, then
recite it to his comrades: some of them who knew writing did write it in his life time on leather of animal,
on some boards of wood and on such other materials; at that time there was no available paper for writing.
Following his death, they collected such written material by some of his comrades who knew all the Quran
by heart, as do you know a poem by heart; they collected such material and compiled the whole book of the
Glorious Quran. I may write about how and what is this "revelation" and "inspiration" in the Spiritual forum of the CanadianContent.

However, Mohammed did not know Hebrew, nor Aramaic (: the original languages of the Torah of Moses
and the Gospel of Jesus); these heavenly scriptures were not translated yet to Arabic and to other languages;
so that he might have compiled the Quran accordingly.
The second point:

I mean: in case they have discovered such uncivilized people only recently; then why not there is a possibility of discovering people on some of the planets.

eanassir
--
--

Last edited by eanassir; Dec 5th, 2007 at 10:30 PM..

eanassir

#126

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Eanassir thank-you for the reply. I find it very interesting to follow the old names through time and cultures. What can you tell us about Sufism today? I have a feeling much of what you speak of has been thier tradition, at least in part.

Thank you, darkbeaver.

Sufi may be similar to monks in Christianity; it is some of the exaggeration and enthusiasm.
In case the Sufism is to glorify God and submit to Him exclusively then o.k. But if it implies some enthusiasm about the prophet or some imams or sheikhs or the Sufis themselves, then it is some of the exaggeration that leads to the sharing or associating others with God – be exalted and glorified.

Explanation:
· When man says: "O God": he seeks the assistance and help of God alone, when he sits and stands and goes to where he wants, then it is o.k. But when he says "O Mohammed", "O Ali" or "O Jesus" then he has associated these righteous men with God; because he should seek the assistance of his Creator only.
· In case he mentions such righteous men with much mentioning day and night, rather than mentioning God alone, then he has associated with God: contrary to the First Commandment.
· If he expends to the poor for the sake of God alone, this is monotheism; but if expends for the sake of such Mohammed, Moses, Jesus, saints and others then this is association with God: he has made those as associates of God: so that he serves them as does he serve God or together with Him; i.e. his servitude has been shared between God and those people, so that he make them equal with God Almighty.
· When he prays or asks of God his needs, this is monotheism; but if he supplicates others thinking that they may grant him his request then such man has associated these righteous prophets and saints with God.
· God does not forgive this crime: that man makes equals to Him.

eanassir
--
--

Dexter Sinister

#127

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 5th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

I mean the sphericity of the earth is some academic statement recognized by some scientists and was denied by others; it was not a recognized fact publicly. The Christian church denied it incessantly and tried or judged and punished by burning and imprisoning some of the scientists who said the earth is not the centre of the universe according to Ptolemy

Universal public education is a relatively recent phenomenon, most people through most of human history have been illiterate and ignorant so of course the sphericity of the earth wasn't a recognized fact publicly. But the fact remains, it's been common knowledge among educated people for at least 2400 years. The Christian church didn't burn anybody for saying the earth isn't flat, as far as I know, though it did punish people for saying it isn't the centre of the universe, but that's a different issue.

Quote:

...we have become alert to the implication of the Quranic word كور i.e. make spherical: make the day spherical on the night; because the process of the daylight takes place in the high atmospheric layer giving it the spherical shape because the earth is a sphere...

Make the day spherical on the night? The process of the daylight takes place in the high atmospheric layer? Even allowing for the fact that English probably isn't your first language, those are completely meaningless sentences. Sunlight arrives at your location when the piece of the earth you're standing on rotates toward the sun, and it takes place in the full depth of the atmosphere, all at once.

Quote:

I may write about how and what is this "revelation" and "inspiration" in the Spiritual forum of the CanadianContent

That's where every thread you've started belongs. There's no science in your Science threads

Quote:

The second point:
I mean: in case they have discovered such uncivilized people only recently; then why not there is a possibility of discovering people on some of the planets.

Again you completely miss the point. The known environments of the other planets in the solar system do not permit humans to live there without elaborate technology to sustain them, and that technology would produce easily identifiable signals in the electromagnetic spectrum. Those signals are not present; therefore there are no humans there.

darkbeaver

#128

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

Giordano Bruno Burned for Heresy (1600)

It was on this date, February 17, 1600, that Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned to death for his religious opinions at the Campo de' Fiori in Rome. He was born Filippo Bruno, in 1548, in the Italian town of Nola, in Campania, in the Kingdom of Naples, and received a Neapolitan education. When he entered the Dominican order at San Domenico monastery in 1565, the seventeen-year-old took the name Giordano.
Bruno was brilliant and had an astounding memory. But in 1576 his education in the Greek-Arab culture of southern Italy, a legacy of the Saracens and anti-papal Frederic II — and his refusal to hold his tongue when discussing his heresies — necessitated his escape from the order at age 28, first to Switzerland, then to France and England, and finally to Germany.
It was in England (1584-1585) that Bruno published his chief works and became friendly with like-minded Deists. Only there did he find respite from the narrow-mindedness of both Protestants and Catholics. Bruno was more Pantheist than Atheist, a lover of nature and a seeker of truth — in God's creation rather than in dogma. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits, "His attitude of mind towards religious truth was that of a rationalist." But there was no place for a Rationalist in any country of Christendom.
The wandering author of The Art of Memory (Ars Memoriae) and Of the Shadow of Ideas (De Umbris Idearum) was enticed back to Italy by a wealthy nobleman of Venice, seeking his secret memory tricks. But the nobleman feared that Bruno would depart before imparting that learning. He alerted the Roman Inquisition to Bruno's whereabouts and, by morning, the philosopher had been detained by the dogmatists. Rather than recant his heresies, Bruno tried to convert his inquisitors to his own natural philosophy. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia, "he failed to feel any of the vital significance of Christianity as a religious system."
Surely Bruno was dangerous to the faith, but the Venetians did not want to kill him. In 1592 Giordano Bruno was dragged to a dungeon in Rome, where he remained for seven years a prisoner. He was repeatedly tortured, but refused to recant. How could he? To Bruno it would have been easier for him to change his sex than his mind. Then on 10 February 1600, certain that this one intransigent man could bring down the entire Christian edifice, the Inquisition allowed him a final week to recant or be executed.
Bruno's answer was the same. As Foote and McLaren write, Bruno was

sentenced to be burnt alive, or, as the Holy Church hypocritically phrased it, to be punished "as mercifully as possible, and without effusion of blood." Haughtily raising his head, [Bruno] exclaimed: "You are more afraid to pronounce my sentence than I to receive it." He ... was burnt to death on the Field of Flowers. To the last he was brave and defiant; he contemptuously pushed aside the crucifix they presented him to kiss; and, as one of his enemies said, he died without a plaint or a groan.*

The Campo de' Fiori, or Field of Flowers, where Giordano Bruno
was burned, as it looked in his day.
Inset: The statue of Bruno, overlooking the plaza today.

-- pronounced this encomium to Bruno 280 years later:

He was the first real martyr, — neither frightened by perdition, nor bribed by heaven. He was the first of all the world who died for truth without expectation of reward. He did not anticipate a crown of glory. ...
The murder of this man will never be completely and perfectly avenged until from Rome shall be swept every vestige of priest and pope, until over the shapeless ruin of St. Peter's, the crumbled Vatican and the fallen cross, shall rise a monument to Bruno, — the thinker, philosopher, philanthropist, atheist, martyr.**

Although the Vatican still stands, a monument to Giordano Bruno now looks out over the plaza where he was burned. It was erected in 1889 by Italian patriots. * George W. Foote and A. D. McLaren, Infidel Death-beds, 1886.
** Robert Green Ingersoll, "The Great Infidels," 1881.

Dexter the Ideas lecture last evening was about science, How to Think about Science was it's title I believe. In the lecture the term Scientific Fundementalism was used to explain a phenomenum noticed about thought. What does the term Scientific Fundementalism mean do you suppose?
Is fundementalism a sin? Science cannot determine, explain or account for everything, because it is only human. I was plowing through Peter Lynds theroy of the universe last night, it is magnificent, especially with respect to time.I would appreciate a scholarly perusal and I am prepared to ship two green rep points to your account, one up front and one when you hand over the goods. One of Brunos sins if I recall correctly was his opinion on celestial spheres.

Last edited by darkbeaver; Dec 6th, 2007 at 11:11 AM..Reason: wrong name

eanassir

#129

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Make the day spherical on the night? The process of the daylight takes place in the high atmospheric layer? Even allowing for the fact that English probably isn't your first language, those are completely meaningless sentences. Sunlight arrives at your location when the piece of the earth you're standing on rotates toward the sun, and it takes place in the full depth of the atmosphere, all at once.

The outer space is dark.
The process of the day-light takes place in the high atmosphere, allowing light to spread this way during daytime.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

The known environments of the other planets in the solar system do not permit humans to live there without elaborate technology to sustain them, and that technology would produce easily identifiable signals in the electromagnetic spectrum. Those signals are not present; therefore there are no humans there.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

God creates every species adapted to its environment. I think we are more advanced than they are.[ It may be because Earth will stop rotation before Mars which will stop rotation 500 years after the Earth.]

-- to Mars

eanassir

--
--
--

Dexter Sinister

#130

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Dexter the Ideas lecture last evening was about science, How to Think about Science was it's title I believe. In the lecture the term Scientific Fundementalism was used to explain a phenomenum noticed about thought. What does the term Scientific Fundementalism mean do you suppose? Is fundementalism a sin? Science cannot determine, explain or account for everything, because it is only human.

Bruno wasn't executed for anything as simple as just saying the earth isn't flat, his cosmology was far more complex and deeply heretical than that. He argued against the notion of planetary spheres, for instance, the old Greek idea that the planets are attached to rotating spheres centred on the earth, but I don't think even the Catholic Church at the time would have argued that the earth was flat. But I may be wrong, I don't have a great interest in what the church thought in the 16th century. Or what it thinks now, for that matter.

I didn't hear the program last night,but I'd take scientific fundamentalism to mean the belief that only empirical statements based on scientific observations set forth in the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims have any validity, or more succinctly, that science is the only way of knowing anything. I wouldn't say that's a sin, it's just stupidly wrong. It would, for instance, make every non-empirical statement equivalent to an act of religious belief, which is such obvious nonsense to me that I hardly know where to begin to criticize it. Fortunately, I don't have to: Robert Carroll has a nice little essay on the general subject --

I'm not familiar with Peter Lynd's theory of the universe, but I'll check it out and get back to you. I presume I can find it on the Web somewhere?

darkbeaver

#131

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

----

-- [physics.gen-ph]

I downloaded the pdf it's only a few pages

Last edited by darkbeaver; Dec 6th, 2007 at 06:31 PM..

Dexter Sinister

#132

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

The outer space is dark.
The process of the day-light takes place in the high atmosphere, allowing light to spread this way during daytime.

Just because the background of space is black doesn't mean it's dark out there. You think the astronauts who went to the moon were in darkness for the whole journey? I don't know what you mean by "The process of the day-light," it's not a process it's just a thing, the illumination by the sun of the side of the earth that faces it. The atmosphere scatters the light to some degree, that's why the sky is blue rather than black as it would be on a body with no atmosphere, like the moon, but daylight is still there in the absence of an atmosphere.

Quote:

God creates every species adapted to its environment. I think we are more advanced than they are.[ It may be because Earth will stop rotation before Mars which will stop rotation 500 years after the Earth.]

Once again you miss the point. You called them men, humans, the same species we are, and claimed they live on other planets in the solar system besides this one. There is no way to adapt a human to live without advanced technology on any other solar system body and have it still be human. The signs of that technology would be easily detectable from here, it hasn't been detected, so it seems reasonable to conclude that there are no humans living anywhere in the solar system but here.

You're also still missing the point about the tidal locking of rotating bodies, and don't appear to understand anything of biological evolution either.

earth_as_one

#133

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

My first contribution to this thread and I haven't read all of it... but to add my two cents.

Recent discoveries regarding exo-planets:
--

This exo-planet probably has liquid water:
--

But its slightly younger than the earth.

Given the abundance of exo-planets, that we have already found one likely to have liquid water, its almost certain that life exists beyond earth. Its certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth began elsewhere. Its also likely that earth, is not the only planet to harbour life.

darkbeaver

#134

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 6th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by earth_as_one

My first contribution to this thread and I haven't read all of it... but to add my two cents.

Recent discoveries regarding exo-planets:
--

This exo-planet probably has liquid water:
--

But its slightly younger than the earth.

Given the abundance of exo-planets, that we have already found one likely to have liquid water, its almost certain that life exists beyond earth. Its certainly within the realm of possibility that life on earth began elsewhere. Its also likely that earth, is not the only planet to harbour life.

I will never believe that we are the only sentient beings in the universe. It makes no sence to me. One off, earth only, get real, count the stars.

Dexter Sinister

#135

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

I will never believe that we are the only sentient beings in the universe. It makes no sence to me. One off, earth only, get real, count the stars.

Yes, it does seem pretty improbable, given the number of galaxies we can see and the number of stars per galaxy. We really have no evidence either way though, all we know for sure is that it's happened once. Given what we know of that one example, I'd bet life will arise anywhere conditions allow it. It appeared on earth almost immediately, as soon as the place cooled enough to permit the appropriate reactions to occur. Are you familiar with the Drake Equation? It's a way of estimating how many communicating civilizations there might be out there, depending on certain assumptions, which you can play around with. Try it --

On the other hand, somebody had to be first, maybe it's us, but at least the question is a legitimately empirical one.

And while I have your attention, I've had a quick read through that paper of Peter Lynds' you linked to, and done some other searching. There's a lot of criticism and controversy out there about it, but this is going to take some serious thought, perhaps helped by a quiet evening at home alone and a wee dram or two of scotch. I can't really tell after just a casual read whether the guy's really on to something or is just another crackpot recycling some ancient Greek ideas like Zeno's Paradox.

darkbeaver

#136

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 7th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Yes, it does seem pretty improbable, given the number of galaxies we can see and the number of stars per galaxy. We really have no evidence either way though, all we know for sure is that it's happened once. Given what we know of that one example, I'd bet life will arise anywhere conditions allow it. It appeared on earth almost immediately, as soon as the place cooled enough to permit the appropriate reactions to occur. Are you familiar with the Drake Equation? It's a way of estimating how many communicating civilizations there might be out there, depending on certain assumptions, which you can play around with. Try it here.
On the other hand, somebody had to be first, maybe it's us, but at least the question is a legitimately empirical one.
And while I have your attention, I've had a quick read through that paper of Peter Lynds' you linked to, and done some other searching. There's a lot of criticism and controversy out there about it, but this is going to take some serious thought, perhaps helped by a quiet evening at home alone and a wee dram or two of scotch. I can't really tell after just a casual read whether the guy's really on to something or is just another crackpot recycling some ancient Greek ideas like Zeno's Paradox.
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

I'm not inclined to independently evauluate the material so your input is appreciated. I will print it off when I'm able and do as you suggested give it some further thought. Thanks for the link. Strangely enough Dex I was puzzeled by something you said in a post about THE BEGINNING, it's bothered me ever since, not what you said but what it made me think, about our need for a beginning. Mr Lynds statements about nonexistant singularities just added enormously to my curiousity. I cannot pretend to be completly familiar with the material but I have read Penrose, Hawkings and anyone I could get. It's a big place and we no relativly nothing about it.

eanassir

#137

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Sunlight arrives at your location when the piece of the earth you're standing on rotates toward the sun, and it takes place in the full depth of the atmosphere, all at once.

I know that you are qualified in science, and you may understand what I mean:
I mean this light spread out during day time; it is not merely the sunshine on a wall or an object; but all the atmosphere is being lightened, giving this illumination and light in the sky and all over the surroundings: this to some extent may be like the illumination of the gas in a flourescent lamp, may be. It is not like the moon which has no atmosphere: on Moon there is no such phenomenon of light spread out; but only the sunshine; the outer space is in like manner: where the sun shines it is lightened; but there is no such light spread out.
I think that I read that such dispersion of light occurs in some higher layer of the atmosphere.
eanassir

Last edited by eanassir; Dec 8th, 2007 at 12:19 AM..

Dexter Sinister

#138

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Yes, the atmosphere does scatter and disperse light, which accounts for the different colours of the sky at sunset and sunrise and in between, and other such phenomena as the fact that the terminator--the line between the light and dark halves of the globe--isn't a sharp boundary but fades gradually from light to dark. The effects take place in the whole atmosphere, not just the upper part of it.

It's nothing like the illumination of a fluorescent lamp though, that's an entirely different thing. That's a gas discharge tube. An electric current through the tube causes the gas it's filled with to emit ultraviolet radiation, which is absorbed by the white phosphor coating on the inside of the tube and re-radiated in the visible spectrum.

eanassir

#139

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister

Yes, the atmosphere does scatter and disperse light... The effects take place in the whole atmosphere, not just the upper part of it.

I know that you will express it in better physical terms.

The atmosphere takes the spherical shape of the earth, and all the half of the atmosphere will be illuminated on which the sun shines; that's it: (He makes the day spherical) and (He makes the night spherical).

darkbeaver

#140

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Good afternoon eanassir. I have affected repairs on my printer.

eanassir

#141

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Good afternoon eanassir. I have affected repairs on my printer.

Darkbeaver, good evening
I just have intended to write to you, but my computer has a temporary difficulty; it is o.k. now.

Last edited by eanassir; Dec 8th, 2007 at 10:28 PM..

darkbeaver

#142

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

Darkbeaver, goodnight [8 p.m. here]
I just have intended to write to you, but my computer has a temporary difficulty; it is o.k. now.

very good then Are you in central Asia?

eanassir

#143

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

I will never believe that we are the only sentient beings in the universe. It makes no sence to me. One off, earth only, get real, count the stars.

If we contemplate the solar system, we shall see it has been created with obvious wisdom, I think, to bear life.

See that:

Each planet has a specific orbit around the sun, which will lead to a certain year of that planet.
Each planet spins around itself to cause the day and night; if not then the dayside will be a hell, and the opposite side will be frozen.
Each planet has a certain axis inclination according to its distance away from the sun; this may moderate its exposure to sun heat according to its distance away from the sun.
Each planet has one or more moons, according to its size ( with the exception of Mercury and Venus which might have lost their moons following their cessation from axial rotation); the moon has important role in letting people understand the counting and arithmetic; because of the different phases; if only one phase they will not be alert about the time. As God - be glorified said in the Quran 10: 5

هُوَ الَّذِي جَعَلَ الشَّمْسَ ضِيَاء وَالْقَمَرَ نُورًا وَقَدَّرَهُ مَنَازِلَ لِتَعْلَمُواْ عَدَدَ السِّنِينَ وَالْحِسَابَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ ذَلِكَ إِلاَّ بِالْحَقِّ يُفَصِّلُ الآيَاتِ لِقَوْمٍ يَعْلَمُونَ
The explanation: (It is He Who made the sun: [light-] emitting and the moon: light[-reflecting] and decreed for her stages [of the moon during its revolution around the earth]; that you [people] may know the counting of years and the calculation [of months and days.] God created not that but with the true [promise of destroying them at their appointed term]; He expounds the revelations to a people who know [astronomy, and they will believe.] )

Each planet has an atmosphere.
The constituents of the planets are almost similar. I don't think that some planets are !gaseous; such large planets will of course has a large atmosphere, an this might have led to mistake about the specific gravity of the planet.

eanassir
--
--
--

Last edited by eanassir; Dec 8th, 2007 at 11:35 AM..

darkbeaver

#144

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

If we contemplate the solar system, we shall see it has been created with obvious wisdom, I think, to bear life.
See that:Each planet has a specific orbit around the sun, which will lead to a certain year of that planet.
Each planet spins around itself to cause the day and night; if not then the dayside will be a hell, and the opposite side will be frozen.
Each planet has a certain axis inclination according to its distance away from the sun; this may moderate its exposure to sun heat according to its distance away from the sun.
Each planet has one or more moons, according to its size ( with the exception of Mercury and Venus which might have lost their moons following their cessation from axial rotation); the moon has important role in letting people understand the counting and arithmetic; because of the different phases; if only one phase they will not be alert about the time.
Each planet has an...
Quote has been trimmed, See full post:

Absolutely , it has been created, it bears life and the seeds of life, it is life itself so to speak I guess? Have a look at the little paper I,m discussing with dex. It deals with the majesty of creation. On the first page it says the universe is finite but has no boundry. Niether does it have a beginning nor an end.

Last edited by darkbeaver; Dec 8th, 2007 at 11:42 AM..

eanassir

#145

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

very good then Are you in central Asia?

I have some difficulty in electric power and internet service.

Last edited by eanassir; Dec 8th, 2007 at 10:27 PM..

darkbeaver

#146

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

I am in Iraq, Baghdad. I have some difficulty in electric power and internet service.

I understand eanassir. No that's not true, I can barely understand. Forgive me for your troubles.Someday the sun will shine.They say Iraq is no more. I hope that isn't true.

eanassir

#147

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

I understand eanassir. No that's not true, I can barely understand. Forgive me for your troubles.Someday the sun will shine.They say Iraq is no more. I hope that isn't true.:-(

The Glorious Quran bears glad tidings for it. It has a devine role; so don't worry. Thank you.

darkbeaver

#148

Re: The mistake of scientists about the origin of life.

Dec 8th, 2007

Quote: Originally Posted by eanassir

The Glorious Quran bears glad tidings for it. It has a devine role; so don't worry. Thank you.

You have eased my mind a little.

Similar Threads

Murchison meteorite and the origin of life
by eanassir | Mar 4th, 2010

Meteorite yields life origin clue
by sanctus | Dec 4th, 2006

Scientists Hope for Life on Saturn's Moon.
by Blackleaf | Mar 15th, 2006