Talk:Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge/Archive1

Quaserz
Don't forget the thing about quasars. Casionaut (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a thing about quasars? 13:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Things about quasars are a thing. Casionaut (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am confuse. 18:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Fetus
Shouldn't we also have something on that notorious "chewing gum" human fetus that looks like a leech? And I thought I recall it being said that salt water cannot mix with pure water.Brianpansky (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Aye, both of those gotta get done. I volunteer you to do it. ^_^ 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

the big bang thing
an arabic analysis of the verse shows that the word used for they were joined and seperated them are the same words used in arabic for a piece of fabric when it was sewed and then ripped apart even some muslims say that and that it has nothing to do with the big bang and that's it is a false theory cause it is not in the quran here https://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvb.tafsir.net%2Ftafsir38239%2F&ei=iukiVKDcJujksATIuYLoCA&usg=AFQjCNHeCITGzdce3nAPCGsvqjucpoHE4g&sig2=Kh9spiGskY9xA2jBnZ81AA

and one more interesting thing is the babylonian myth of creation also does have the same creation myth earth and sky ripped apart (you can find it on the net i don't have enough time for research) and that's closer than the chinese myth cited.

and also when people get in the site we're looking for the refutation of the miracle first so maybe we should put a small summary of the refutation with the concerning miracle at the first not at last. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 89.93.180.42 / talk / contribs

How can he have a child

 * The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child...

What? is there some rational basis for the deity of Christ or the virgin birth? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Uhm..
Why is the ForeknowledgeNav template sometimes both above and below a section header? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ... reasons 04:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Big Crunch
The RW comment on the big crunch stuff implies that we're living in a Friedmann Universe. In these universe models, all the energy density within the universe comes from (nonrelativistic) matter and we can associate:

The energy density is lower than the critical density: The universe is open and expands indefinitely, although the expansion speed decreases a bit, Energy density equals critical density: The universe is spatially flat and asymptotically approaches an expansion speed of zero, The energy density is higher than the critical density: The universe is closed and will eventually recollapse (Big Crunch)

However, Friedman universes are not standard cosmology anymore since the discovery of the accelerated expansion of the universe (discovered 1998 or so, Nobel Prize 2011). This is not the case in any of the Friedman models and is attributed to dark energy. Thus, standard cosmology distinctly contradicts the possibility of the Big Crunch. With all that dark matter around, it couldn't recollapse even with a moderate amount of positive curvature (closed universe), and modern cosmological parameters still haven't found a significant deviation from zero curvature anyway (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5076v3.pdf, eq 67 and 68). Thus, with dark energy around, "closed", "flat" and "open" only refers to the large scale geometry of the universe and does not necessarily say anything about the ultimate fate of a universe.

Also, as long as the dark energy does not noticeably diminish over time (the standard model assumes a constant dark energy density, i.e. a cosmological constant), an almost empty universe with too thinly spread matter to form stars isn't the end of the story. Dark energy domination causes an exponential expansion of the universe, a second inflationary phase, so to speak, which eventually destroys bound states of all sorts: First, the expansion will be fast enough to blast apart galaxies, stellar systems and such things, then stars, planets etc. themselves, then it will rip apart the electrons from the atomic nuclei, the nuclei themselves and finally the nucleons. --93.209.251.223 (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add this stuff in. However, if you have the time, this is a wiki -- you can always add it in yourself and fix the article. (Though I don't believe that the article is currently wrong, except for the portion on the curvature of spacetime.) 04:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was trying to be lazy, but in hindsight, it would probably have been the lazier solution to just edit the page. Anyway, I'm somewhat busy this week and I'll edit it next week if you haven't done it by then. --93.209.251.223 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)