The Origins of the Universe

[GrandizerII]

I guess in that verse, smoke was meant to be the precursor for the clouds in the sky.

Anyway, it helps to have a look at the various translations of the verse here. Not seeing anything miraculous here. It's part of a story, not a scientific finding.

This verse and many other agree with modern science, there is no point in bickering about this fact. A skeptic can of course bring other interpretations/translations and claim there is no miracle, but this is clearly disingenuous.

That depends on what you mean by "agree with modern science". The verse is certainly not backed by modern cosmological science, as modern science doesn't support the idea of creation.

[brewer]

The origin can be read in the Silmarillion. Klor, you need to start worshiping that book and it's god, living your life (and afterlife) by it's teachings.

You'd be a better person for it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This verse and many other agree with modern science, there is no point in bickering about this fact. A skeptic can of course bring other interpretations/translations and claim there is no miracle, but this is clearly disingenuous.

That depends on what you mean by "agree with modern science". The verse is certainly not backed by modern cosmological science, as modern science doesn't support the idea of creation.

Not to mention the verse only "agrees " with science because it's so vague it could be used to fit anything science finds.

[R00tKiT]

That depends on what you mean by "agree with modern science". 

The verse conveys the idea that everything was "combined" and then split apart, which agrees with the modern description of a universe expanding from a "singularity" or a dense initial state, this much is indisputable.

 The verse is certainly not backed by modern cosmological science, as modern science doesn't support the idea of creation.

Science is silent on the idea of creation, it neither confirms nor rejects it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like you've been getting your science from witchdoctors again Kloro.

[Jehanne]

That depends on what you mean by "agree with modern science". 

The verse conveys the idea that everything was "combined" and then split apart, which agrees with the modern description of a universe expanding from a "singularity" or a dense initial state, this much is indisputable.

 The verse is certainly not backed by modern cosmological science, as modern science doesn't support the idea of creation.

Science is silent on the idea of creation, it neither confirms nor rejects it.

Klorophyll,

I have already pointed this out to you, but within The Physical Review Letters, there are published models of beginning-less, eternal Universes.

[polymath257]

That depends on what you mean by "agree with modern science". 

The verse conveys the idea that everything was "combined" and then split apart, which agrees with the modern description of a universe expanding from a "singularity" or a dense initial state, this much is indisputable.

But that *isn't* the modern description. There was no 'combining' and then 'splitting apart'.

It seems you don't even know what the modern description says.

 The verse is certainly not backed by modern cosmological science, as modern science doesn't support the idea of creation.

Science is silent on the idea of creation, it neither confirms nor rejects it.

But it does go directly against most Abrahamic versions of creation.

[R00tKiT]

But that *isn't* the modern description. There was no 'combining' and then 'splitting apart'.

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

You should bear in mind that the Qur'an is conveying the account of creation to people who lived in the 7th century. So the words that one should expect should mean something that these people can relate to.

But it does go directly against most Abrahamic versions of creation.

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo. It doesn't confirm it completely, I give you that, but we're one step closer to the religious account of how the world began.

Also, don't forget that the Big bang theory was originally suggested by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. I don't see why a priest would advocate a theory that supposedly damages their beliefs, as you seem to imply here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Big Mo and his fellow muslims were just too dumb for god to have described anything that it had done accurately? Which part of this, in your estimation, strengthens the case for your idiotic religion or it's incompetent deity?

It's just what dummies could understand, as far as allah could manage. Awesome, which way is east? I think alot of the people here wonder the same thing about you as you ask about about a catholic priest. I know I do.

[Jehanne]

But that *isn't* the modern description. There was no 'combining' and then 'splitting apart'.

Expanding can be described as splitting apart. Something is expanding, after all.

You should bear in mind that the Qur'an is conveying the account of creation to people who lived in the 7th century. So the words that one should expect should mean something that these people can relate to.

But it does go directly against most Abrahamic versions of creation.

How? On the contrary, it goes in the direction of creation ex nihilo. It doesn't confirm it completely, I give you that, but we're one step closer to the religious account of how the world began.

Also, don't forget that the Big bang theory was originally suggested by a catholic priest, Georges Lemaître. I don't see why a priest would advocate a theory that supposedly damages their beliefs, as you seem to imply here.

Our Universe does not have a physical center.