Mark.g Switch

Well of course you wouldn't think that I would give him the last word right?
I just had to reply this guy. And obviously he is getting very furious when you realize how jumble up his comments are becoming.

--------------------------------------------------------
mrgoh
Very interesting read indeed mimag.

It is obvious you are a staunch muslim - I can see the same occurances of the argument about Intelligent Design again - Genesis-disguised-as-Science.

mimag quote:
01)As far as Muslims (whether good or bad) are concern Prophet Muhammad is not GOD..
Everyday atleast 5 times, Muslims are reminded that...there is no God(s) except ALLAH and Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of ALLAH.

mrgoh: Opps my bad. It was my mistake. Sorry.

mimag quote:
02)You are putting forward SCIENTIFIC THEORIES to prove/disprove the existence of God.

Mrgoh:
I have NOT put any scientific theories to prove/disprove the existence of a God. It is the followers of Intelligent Design are the ones that are trying to use so called science to support their claim of god. Science never indulged in a God.

Mimag:
You, me as well as others know that Scientific Theories are not reliable as Science had made U- Turns in the past.

Mrgoh:
Yes Science had made U-turns and THAT is the reason why IT IS GOOD! Science is almost like a living breathing thing - it changes every second in accordance to new evidence, new theories, new discoveries and new ways! Does that render it zero credibility? Absolutely, NOT because science evolves as our KNOWLEDGE evolves. We can never STOP learning about new things hence SCIENCE can never stop evolve. Whenever we discover NEW stuff the science of it CHANGES to accomodate that discovery - THAT IS SCIENCE! Hundreds of years ago we thought that Earth was the center of the solar system and that the earth is FLAT - but NOW we know better and science has EVOLVE to accomodate that fact. U-turns, Right-Turns, Left-Turns, and all-Turns are good in science!

mimag quote:
03)My dear Mr Goh, the theory of the Big Bang is no longer a theory.. It is an ESTABLISH SCIENTIFIC FACT..!!.

mrgoh:
Nice tackle there - trying to use EMPHASIS as a point to make your argument. Wrong! Big Bang is not a fact - it is just accepted popularly as the beginning of space and time by physics. It is taken to be the MOST ACCURATE HYPOTHESIS / THEORY and it math and physics points its consistencies however it is NOT A FACT. Just because the majority of the scientific world has voted to it does not elevate it into a fact and just because BB is consistent to current evidence does not make it a fact. If Big Bang is truly a fact than the Theory of relativity and Quantum Mechanics could be unified under the GUT (Grand Unification Theory) -- So far, the string theory is the front runners but it is still way way way way far behind to unify TOR and QM. So I suggest you take that back - Until we discover GUT and explain the singularity at the point of impact -- BB is not a fact. Period.

mimag quote:A new star forming out of a cloud of gas and dust (nebula), which is one of the remnants of the "smoke" that was the origin of the whole universe.

Mrgoh: For your information EACH particle in that 'smoke' you call is the size of our planet or a milion times larger! Just to put it in better perspective when you decide to call something a 'smoke'.

Mimag quote:
"The universe starts with a Big Bang, expands to a maximum dimension, then recontracts and collapses (to the Big Crunch); no more awe-inspiring prediction was ever made." Quotation from Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John A. Wheeler in "Gravitation", W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973, page 1196.
Visit : http://www.evidencesofcreation..._01_02.htm

Mrgoh: Guess what? Wrong here too. Your article is dated in 1973 that is more than 20 years old. 20 years in Science years are considered ancient science evolve by the seconds. I also noted that you pick this up in www.evidenceofcreation... website. Geez...to be honest there buddy website like those does not render any credibility at all. Why? because all they look for is a hint of Intelligent design and nothing else - they filter out anything that defies their claims even though evidence like evolution of life and man are undisputedly accepted among every scientists they just give it a blind eye. All they do is cherry pick their arguments and interpret it however they want to. We have evidence that might make the Big Crunch theory perilously hanging to be discarded entirely. Why do you only talk about that specific theory of the Big Crunch? How about the theory of Oscillatory Universe that the universe Collapse and Expand everlastingly (The Big Bounce) or the theory of Big Freeze (Heat Death) where the universe expands everlastingly and the temperature plummetted to absolute zero or The Big Rip where the rate of the accelaration of expansion increases indefinitely? You are cherry picking your arguments and only pick those theories that support your arguments. This is not a scientific argument by you - in science we consider all theories and we prove it and definitely not picking a theory that LOOKS consistent to a religious scriptures so that you can 'prove' those scriptures are right. Big Crunch is a THEORY - which means it still remains a hypothesis to be look into further and to be proven.

I hate to burst your bubble but:
The opposite is happening right now - our universe is EXPANDING at an ACCELERATED RATE - Edward Hubble discovered it and till this day it is still consistent. In 1998, we are astonished to prove that the universe is ever expanding at an accelerated rate. This phenomenon is irrefutable which was Einstein's biggest blunder. The cosmological constant is the presence of DARK ENERGY which to your dismay is accelerating our universe outwards - it is not slowing down at all.
( Scientific Online Periodical) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325144750.htm
( news website) http://newsblaze.com/story/20070820180611nnnn.nb/topstory.html

Still not convince about Dark Energy? I was too but in 2002 guess what?
Suprise! Suprise! We have evidence of Dark Energy:
( Space website) http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_matter_021112.html
( BBC - popular news agency) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2444123.stm
(BBC - again) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3330527.stm
( CNN ) http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/18/dark.energy/index.html

So is Big Crunch been discarded in the midst of the limelight of Dark Energy? Answer: Not yet but it is sidelined at the moment - the presence of Dark Energy is too evident in our universe.

Of course I can continue to research on the rest of your findings that you quoted but it will take me too long to do that. As you can see one argument that you pointed out that of the Big Crunch - I already disputed with a large paragraph and 6 website references from well established websites like BBC, CNN, Space.com and Sciencedaily.com.

I want to make this crystal clear - religion and science is a realm that is undisputedly separated. One is based on faith another is totally faithless. Do not confuse one to another - there is nothing more different than these two. You can interpret the Big Bang as the creation of the universe by Allah/Jesus/Siddharta/Zeus/Ra/etc, Ozone as a protective layer describe by the al-Quran, the Vatican Cape used to cover Jesus's body after crucification as the image of Christ, etc, etc, etc but religion is NOT science. No offence but I can Toast a slice of bread a million times until a vague print of the image of the Mary Virgin Mother appears, I.D. even argues that the Grand Canyon evidence of the Great Flood that Noah survived, I can say the Big Crunch the collapse of the universe as the forthcoming Kiamat and that stills do not prove anything about religion.

Just because IT IS INDICITIVE does not make it IRREFUTABLE and hence do not PROVE of the citations of the bible/quran/etc/etc/etc . All of these are nothing but indicitive - to be honest being classified as indicitive is already a huge gesture of generosity by the scientific community. The majority would not even consider all of these as science let alone indicitive but just vague interpretations.

I do not want to destroy your faith or criticise it - I am just advicing you of keeping religion OUT of science. Keep it separated!

PS: I do not know how did you interpret my former comment as using science to prove/disprove a God. All I said in the other comment is to STOP arguing about a God/religion - Like I said before: I am not so arrogant to talk about God (or the lack of one). AGAIN: I do not know how did you interpret my former comment as using science to prove/disprove a God. All I did was putting real science like Big Bang, String Theory and GUT beside Intelligent Design. Where did I say Big Bang is God's work? I have specifically quoted:
" There is no evidence that God create the universe and there is no evidence that God did not create the universe. This is the concept of Continuous that I was talking about - the idea of the GREY where things are neither in existence nor existence."

Your misinterpretation of the content of my comments PROVES that you are incapable of continuous thinking. You HAD to classify my 5th paragraph in my last comment as proving/disproving GOD. BUT I DID NOT I LEFT IT GREY AND HANGING - I LEFT IT CONTINOUS! It is frustrating that I have to subject to CAPITALIZING all my key points to get it across to you. WARNING: I am not saying you are stupid just that it is not your strongest point. At the end of my paragraph I said "This is the concept of Continuous that I was talking about - the idea of the GREY where things are neither in existence nor non-existence."

Whatever it is.... I say stop my comment on this here. This will be my last entry on this.

--------------------------------------------------------
mimag2005

The BEST MATHEMATICIANS IN THE WORLD cannot truly understand the meaning of infinity - all they HAVE is A MIRAGE OF AN ABSTRACT IDEA WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE. Infinite to me is just A VAGUE SHADOW OF THE REAL MEANING. It is indeed an element that exists in the CONTINUOUS THINKING AND HENCE DIFFICULT TO GRASP. But infinite is just that - continuous!

part 4
….comments PROVES that you are incapable of continuous thinking. You HAD to classify my 5th paragraph in my last comment as proving/disproving GOD. BUT I DID NOT! I LEFT IT COMPLETELY GREY AND HANGING - I LEFT IT CONTINOUS! It is frustrating….CAPITALIZING all my key points….. WARNING: I am not saying you are stupid…..At the end of my paragraph I SAID "THIS IS THE CONCEPT OF CONTINUOUS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT- THE IDEA OF THE GREY WHERE THINGS ARE NEITHER IN EXISTENCE NOR NON-EXISTENCE."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

01) Is it a he or a she...maybe this or maybe that..or none of this and that..!!!

Sounds like him...looks like her.. don’t know whether its him or her...!!!

If this is what continuous thinking has to offer then...thanks but no thanks... I’ll stick to my elementary maths 1 1 = 2...most certainly it cannot be 1 or 11..!!!

In the Holy Qur’an Ch 3 V7..ALLAH says….

...."He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."

written by mrgoh, April 02, 2008 | 02:58:25
Part 1 of 3
It is obvious you are a staunch muslim - I can see the same occurances of the argument about Intelligent Design again - Genesis-disguised-as-Science.
written by mrgoh, April 02, 2008 | 03:11:41
Part 3
Just because IT IS INDICITIVE does not make it IRREFUTABLE and hence do not PROVE of the citations of the bible/quran/etc/etc/etc . All of these are nothing but indicitive - to be honest BEING CLASSIFIED AS INDICITIVE IS ALREADY A HUGE GESTURE OF GENEROSITY BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.. The majority would not even consider all of these as science let alone indicitive but just vague interpretations.
written by mrgoh, April 02, 2008 | 03:12:17
part 4
I do not want to destroy your faith or criticise it - I am just advicing you of keeping religion OUT of science. Keep it separated!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

02)..Notice theres a degree of averseness in your perception on ReligionS when it comes to Science.

Just thinking out aloud... Perhaps it got something to do with your “recollection “ of the INQUISITION in the 12/13TH century....??

Whatever your reasons , I assure you that ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACTS WILL ALWAYS FIND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE RELIGION OF ISLAM/QUR’AN “ wherein contain abundance of knowledge which the Scientific World will find useful for their quest”.

Also I would like to remind you and your “ like minded “ brothers that where the Muslims are concern the Qur’an is the Ultimate Yardstick as compared to your yardstick i.e. Science.

What do I mean...?

It means that present day Science with all its Advance Technology, Highly Develop Instruments with equally Highly Evolved Intelligence are NOW ACQUIRING new knowledge, PENETRATING UNTAP/UNKNOWN FRONTIERS, making loud pronouncements on new scientific discoveries about the world and the universe we live in...

The Holy Quran, on the other hand, already revealed these “ SCIENTIFIC MIRACLES” 1400 YEARS AGO. The Holy Qur’an contain much, much more which present and future day Science yet to discover....

So Science, “ Men of Understanding “ and the “ Truth Seekers “ should heed and follow the Creator’s message brought forth by HIS “ Unlettered “ Prophet Muhammed…a denizen of the desert.....as prophesied in the scriptures....

Isaiah Ch 29 V 12
...And the book shall be given to one that knoweth no letters, and it shall be said to him: Read: and he shall answer: I know no letters...( (Douay Rheims1899)

Holy Qur’an Ch 7 V.157
"Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

Holy Qur’an Ch 7 V 158

Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Apostle of God, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in God and His Apostle, the Unlettered Prophet, who believeth in God and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."

To the SCEPTICS, THE AGNOSTICS, the ATHEISTS this is unacceptable.. they will not be satisfied. They need an answer to this question...THEN WHO CREATED GOD..?

To this group of people...I HAVE THE ANSWER..!!!! BUT..before I answer your question...FIRST I NEED YOU TO GIVE A SIMPLE NAME to this unborn child...I have NO OBJECTION if you want TO APPLY YOUR CONTINUOUS THINKING....

Your brother inform that from the ultra scan report, he is going to give birth to a baby boy. He has given you the privilege of naming his yet to be born son. What name shall you give him...???

While you are going thru the complex mathematical computations using the highly develop “GREY” matter, ...I take leave with a verse from the Holy Quran Ch 112 v1-4....

“Say: He is God, the One and Only;
God, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him. “


MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU..!!

..................