Misleading Pseudo-Scientific Disinformation - Beware Of It!

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

This thread is about the book, A Brief lllustrated Guide to Understanding Islam.

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

This publication makes a number of misleading and inaccurate claims. There are many false claims on this page...

http://www.islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-c.htm ...made concerning the science of Astronomy. I will now list these claims and demonstrate how and why they are false.

 

1.

Modern theoretical and observational Cosmology (a branch of Astronomy) clearly indicates that the universe was at one time nothing but a cloud of 'smoke'.

 

2.

The 'smoke' referred to is described as being of an opaque, highly dense and hot gaseous composition.

 

Both claims #1 and #2 are false.

 

Proper science does not make generalized comparisons where they are not needed. There is no scientific, logical or educational requirement to refer to the conditions in the very early universe as a cloud of 'smoke'. Placing the word into quotation marks is unnecessary. Either the universe was nothing but smoke or it wasn't. If it was, why place the word in quotation marks? If it was smoke-like, why not just say so? If it was smoky, again, why not just say so? The fact that the Brief Guide uses quotation marks around the word smoke, should be cause for suspicion.

 

When conducted properly, the discipline of science has no need to use quotation marks when describing something scientifically. If the thing in question is an opaque, highly dense and hot gas, why not just say so? Why is there any need to refer to it as something it is not.

 

In the physical sciences, gas is not smoke and smoke is not gas. The two are totally different and the two terms are not interchangeable. Smoke comes from the burning of combustible material http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Combustion in an atmosphere that is rich in the gas Oxygen. The proper, scientific term for this burning is Deflagration. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Deflagration

 

Big Bang Cosmology describes the ultra-fast expansion of the universe in the first seconds of it's existence. There was no burning, combustion or deflagration involved in this process. There was nothing present to burn or combust and there was no gaseous Oxygen to permit the burning of anything. To say that the Big Bang was an explosion that involved any burning, combustion or deflagration is not accurate either. Without burning, combustion or deflagration and without any burnable or combustible material to burn, no smoke could have been generated in the Big Bang event.

 

Now let us look at what the Big Bang event did create. No burnable solids or liquids, only gases... and no smoke.

http://en.wikipedia....nucleosynthesis Here is a complete listing of the gases created in the Big Bang.

Hydrogen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen Hydrogen is not smoke. It is an odorless, colorless, tastleless gas that burns ONLY in the presence of Oxygen. As we will see, there was no Oxygen present in the early universe. Without Oxygen there can be no burning or combustion. Without Oxygen, there can be no smoke.

Deuterium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium Deuterium is not smoke. It does not burn or combust at all, not even in the presence of Oxygen. Therefore, it cannot generate smoke.

Helium 3 & Helium 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium Neither Helium 3 or Helium 4 is smoke. Helium is a chemically inert gas that doesn not burn or combust, even in presence of Oxygen. Therefore, it cannot generate smoke.

Lithium 6 & Lithium 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium Unlike the others, Lithium is highly reactive and flammable, but only when combined with the gas Oxygen. No Oxygen = no burning or combustion. Therefore, Lithium could not have generated any smoke, just after the Big Bang event. This is because there was no Oxygen created in that event. Oxygen only came about millions of years later, by another, completely different process. Tritium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium This is a radioactive isotope of Hydrogen, which, as we've seen, only burns in presence of Oxygen. Tritium is not smoke, nor is it capable of generating smoke.

Beryllium 7 & 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium These are radioactive isotopes of the stable element Beryllium 4. This is not smoke. Beryllium does not burn or combust, even in the presence of Oxygen, therefore it cannot generate smoke.

 

So, the complete list of chemical elements created by the Big Bang event is as follows...

Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium 3 & 4, Lithium 6 & 7, Tritium and Beryllium 7 & 8. No smoke at all. Also, no Oxygen, which is needed by ALL combustible materials to ignite. Therefore, the Big Bang event did not generate any smoke at all. To say or even imply that it did is wrong, misleading and dishonest. To confirm that there was no smoke present at the beginning of the universe, let us now look at what smoke actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke

 

Smoke particles are an aerosol (or mist) of solid particles and liquid droplets that are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light. No solids or liquids were created in the Big Bang event, only gases and only the ones described above. Therefore, the Big Bang did not generate any smoke.

Here is a (not exhaustive) list of the many things that can go to make up Smoke. (Depending on what material is burned.)

 

Nitrogen Oxide.

Sulfur Dioxide.

Carbon Dioxide.

Carbon Monoxide.

Hydrogen Chloride.

Phosgene

Dioxin

Chloromethane

Bromomethane

Halocarbons

Hydrogen Fluoride

Phosphorus Oxide

Antimony Oxide

2,3,7,8 - tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

Carbonyl Fluoride

Carbon Tetrafluoride

Hexafluoropropylene

Perfluoroisobutane

Methane

Ethane

Ethylene

Acetylene

Benzene

various PolyAromaticHydrocarbons

various Terpenes

Hydrogen Sulfide

Carbonyl Sulfide

Carbon Disulfide

various Thiols

various Aldehydes

various Ketones

various Alcohols

various Carboxylic acids

Carbon (Soot)

Particles of inorganic salts

Particles of amorphous silicas

Fly ash (Silica and Calcium Oxide)

Water Vapor

Trace elements such as...

Vanadium, Nickel, Aluminium, Arsenic, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Iron, Mercury and Uranium

Molten Vanadates (Vanadium compounds)

Molten Sulfates

Lead Particulates

Guaiacol

Syringol

Methoxyl Phenols

Retene

Levoglucosan

 

Not the same as the list of elements produced by the Big Bang event, is it?

 

Nor do we see any free Oxygen. Neither list includes Oxygen, which is absolutely vital for any combustible materials to be ignited. With no Oxygen there can be no combustion or burning. No combustion/burning = no smoke.

It's that simple.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So, claim #1 is clearly shown to be false. A lie. A misleading piece of pseudo-scientific bunk.

 

Claim #2 is only partly accurate.

The earliest moments of the Big Bang event were opaque, highly dense, hot and gaseous.

But the gases listed in red are not smoke. They are not smoky. They are not even remotely smoke-like. They had no capacity to be anything like smoke. Instead, smoke can consist of any of the gases listed in green and also includes solid particles and liquid droplets. There were no solids or liquids generated by the Big Bang event, therefore there was no smoke present. The red and the green lists are totally different from each other and neither of them includes Oxygen. No Oxygen = No burning = No smoke.

 

It is totally misleading, false and dishonest for the Brief Guide to claim, state or imply that the Big Bang event generated any smoke or that there was any smoke present in the early universe. This is a lie. Another pseudo-scientific trick designed to trap the unwary and the easily persuaded.

 

Please do not give this book any credence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[LivingLife]

Islam can only appeal to the scientific illiterate. Seen these claims of theirs all too often as if that somehow will validate their woo.

[scitsofreaky]

Deleted because I'm an idiot.

[stryper]

how was BAA creating and taking down a strawman? He quoted the text exactly. Then refuted it. That is not a strawman.

[scitsofreaky]

Oops, I didn't get across what I was trying to say clearly at all (being a sleepy dumbass right now). All that one really needs to rebutt the dumbassness of "Islamic science" is that it is a strawman. Fuck it, I'll just delete what I said because it is really stoopid. Move along, nothing to see here.

[stryper]

thanks for the clarity. Thought I screwed up what a strawman argument was again.

 

I remember as a christian actually pointing out a circular argument and making the point that because it WAS a circular argument it made MORE sense. Course I was in high school at the time...so take it for what it's worth.

 

The point is I still today have some difficulty it spotting logical fallacies when they occur. Better then I was but sometimes I still slip up.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Muhammad believed that world was flat. He also believed that Allah, like Enlil before him, divided the Sky and the Earth, because they were solid structures that once laid upon eachother. That's the reality of Islamic cosmology. Big bang was never.

[ConureDelSol]

Don't forget that semen comes from a man's chest! Ah, the wisdom of the Quran.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Don't forget that semen comes from a man's chest! Ah, the wisdom of the Quran.

Or that Muhammad cut the moon in half with a sword, then rode a flying horse into the clouds. Nah, not the product of too much hashish. Or was it?

[blackpudd1n]

thanks for the clarity. Thought I screwed up what a strawman argument was again.

 

I remember as a christian actually pointing out a circular argument and making the point that because it WAS a circular argument it made MORE sense. Course I was in high school at the time...so take it for what it's worth.

 

The point is I still today have some difficulty it spotting logical fallacies when they occur. Better then I was but sometimes I still slip up.

 

I have the same issue, though I think I'm worse than you. I just try and focus on a logical, step-by-step argument. Sometimes I take a lot of time responding somewhere because I have to work out what I want to say in my head, and work out whether it's logical or not.

 

Thanks for the information, BAA. I wonder if the current muslim apologist will actually debate you on this.

[bornagainathiest]

thanks for the clarity. Thought I screwed up what a strawman argument was again.

 

I remember as a christian actually pointing out a circular argument and making the point that because it WAS a circular argument it made MORE sense. Course I was in high school at the time...so take it for what it's worth.

 

The point is I still today have some difficulty it spotting logical fallacies when they occur. Better then I was but sometimes I still slip up.

 

I have the same issue, though I think I'm worse than you. I just try and focus on a logical, step-by-step argument. Sometimes I take a lot of time responding somewhere because I have to work out what I want to say in my head, and work out whether it's logical or not.

 

Thanks for the information, BAA. I wonder if the current muslim apologist will actually debate you on this.

 

Well guys, that's what we're here for, right? To help each other out?

 

The icing on the cake for me is that I just LOVE writing about Astronomy, so it's no kind of chore at all.

 

To answer your question Blackpudd1n...

 

...I hope she does!

 

In fact, I'll go now and make it even easier for her to find this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello. This is my second posting concerning this book...

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

...which contains a great deal of false and misleading information. This (dis)information is dishonestly presented as bona-fide, authenticated and accredited scientific data. It is not. Nor should it accepted as anything factual or meaningful.

 

This page...

 

http://www.islam-gui...frm-ch1-1-c.htm

 

...makes a number of false claims. Today I wish to focus on the claims pertaining to image, Figure 10.

This is the Orion nebula. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Orion_Nebula You can see it during the winter months by looking for the misty patch beneath the three stars of Orion's belt. This image shows it quite nicely. http://upload.wikime...n_3008_huge.jpg

 

According to the Brief Guide astronomers can observe new stars being formed in this nebula, out of what remains of the original 'smoke' that made up the original material of the early universe. Almost all of this is false and misleading. Here's how...

 

1.

In my first post I gave details of the false and misleading claims about the original 'smoke' that supposedly existed in the early universe. Therefore, I will not repeat these details and will only re-itterate my conclusions. There was no smoke in the early universe. It is totally wrong to claim that there was. There is no scientific, logical or educational basis for claiming that there was any smoke or anything remotely smoky or smoke-like in the early universe.

Therefore, there is no remnant of this smoke left over in the Orion nebula, from which new stars can form. Such a claim is a blatant falsehood and has no basis in Astronomical science. Please disregard it and treat it as the lie it is.

 

2.

If we compare the gaseous content of the Orion nebula to the original gases generated by the Big Bang event, we can see that there are significant differences - differences which I will explain. The original gases found in the early universe are Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium 3 & 4, Lithium 6 & 7, Tritium and Beryllium 7 & 8.

The Orion nebula is simply a concentrated region of the Interstellar Medium, where newborn and young stars are causing various gases to become visible. http://en.wikipedia....erstellar_space

The long list of molecules found in interstellar space is very different from the list of gases in the Big Bang era. It only overlaps in two instances. Hydrogen in it's molecular form (H2) is present in both the Nebula and the early universe. Deuterium, Hydrogen's deuterated form, is present in both the Nebula and the early universe. Helium 3 & 4, Lithium 6 & 7, Tritium and Beryllium 7 & 8 are not present in the Nebula.

 

3.

Another major difference is the presence of dust in the Nebula. http://en.wikipedia....rplanetary_dust There was no such dust generated by the Big Bang. There was no such dust present in the early universe. Nor is this dust any kind of smoke. It's chemical content, shape, size and behavior is totally different.

 

Also, the Orion Nebula is made of gases and dust which have been chemically processed by early generations of stars. As such, the Nebula's contents are not made up of the 'original' materials generated by the Big Bang event. The Nebula is made up from gas and dust formed by Population 1 and Population 2 stars.

 

As this Wiki page explains... http://en.wikipedia....pulation_1_star ...all of the stars within the Milky Way galaxy are made up of Population 1 and 2. These stars did not form out of the original elements (listed in red, above) but are 2nd and 3rd generation stars, formed from the chemically-processed remnants of the very first stars - the Population 3 stars. This diagram... http://en.wikipedia....ile:Starpop.svg ...clearly shows that there are no Population 3 stars within our galaxy. Population 3 stars are the very first ones to form out the original elements listed in red, above. They no longer exist and none of them is to be found within our galaxy.

In fact, there is no original, unaltered and pristine material (the so-called 'smoke') to be found within our galaxy. All of it is found outside of the galaxies. Please go to the heading, Intergalactic to read about it here... http://en.wikipedia....m#Intergalactic

Therefore, neither the Orion nebula (Figure 10), not the Lagoon Nebula (Figure 11) can be presented as valid examples of the original 'smoke'

 

http://www.islam-gui...frm-ch1-1-c.htm

 

These claims are simply out-an-out lies and should be treated as such.

 

4.

The Brief Guide also makes a factual error in it's citiation for Figure 10.

The Space Atlas was written by Nigel Henbest http://en.wikipedia....i/Nigel_Henbest and Heather Couper http://en.wikipedia..../Heather_Couper , not by Henbest and Heather.

 

5.

Please note that The Space Atlas http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0152005986 is a book intended for schoolchildren and is not an accredited source of first-hand, peer-reviewed scientific data. This prompts the question, why is the Brief Guide relying on it to validate it's claims? Why not use proper science from proper scientists, submitted to proper scientific forums in the form of properly vetted and peer-reviewed scientific papers? The answer is that the Brief Guide is quote-mining. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Quote_mining This has been done with the intention to deceive.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In my next post I will detail other falsehoods and misdirections from this book...

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

_Hello.

_{This is my third post on the subject of the book, A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam.}

 

_{http://www.islam-guide.com/}

 

_{As detailed in my earlier posts, this section of the book... http://www.islam-gui...frm-ch1-1-c.htm contains many examples of misleading information, pseudo-science, unscientific claims and outright lies. Building upon the disinformation I have exposed I will now investigate the unsupportable conclusions drawn by these people... http://www.islam-gui...frm-editors.htm}

 

_{According to Brief Guide, the stars illuminating Earth's sky were in the 'smoke' material that existed just after the Big Bang event.}

 

_{This is not correct. This statement is wrong on three counts.}

 

_{First, none of the stars visible from Earth were in that smoke. This is because the word smoke is inapplicable to the conditions found in the early universe. I have already detailed why this is and will not repeat myself here.}

 

_{Second, none of the stars visible from Earth existed at that early period in the universe's history. Those that are hypothesized to have existed at that time have NEVER BEEN SEEN! http://en.wikipedia....ation_III_stars These Population 3 stars are not visible from Earth, do not illuminate our night sky and are completely absent from our entire galaxy.}

 

_{Third and last, ALL of the stars visible from Earth are 2nd and 3rd generation stars, formed out of the gaseous remnants of earlier generations of stars, not the original gases generated in the Big Bang. The proper sequence of events runs like this...}

 

_{1. The Big Bang generates hot, dense gases (not smoke!) .}

_{2. The first stars (Population 3) form out of these gases.}

_{3. The first stars explode and die.}

_{4. The left over gases of the Population 3 stars form the next generation of stars (2nd generation)}

_{5. Some of the 2nd generation stars explode and die.}

_{6. The left over gases of these dead 2nd generation stars form 3rd generation stars.}

_{7. All of the stars visible from Earth are therefore, either 2nd or 3rd generation. There is nothing original about them at all. All of their chemical elements have been altered from their original state. This has been done by the R-process (R for Rapid) and the S-Process (S for Slow).}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

 

Therefore, it is totally false to claim that the stars in our sky were once in (or part of) the original gases generated by the Big Bang event.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

_{According to Brief Guide, the Earth and everything else in the universe was formed from this 'smoke'.}

 

_{This is not correct. This statement is wrong on two counts.}

 

_{First, as detailed beforehand, there is no scientific, logical or educational basis for referring to the hot dense gases generated by the Big Bang event as 'smoke'. This is totally incorrect, scientifically inaccurate and completely misleading. We can see how wrong this is by reminding ourselves of just what these original gases were.}

Hydrogen, Deuterium, Helium 3 & 4, Lithium 6 & 7, Tritium and Beryllium 7 & 8. Not smoke at all. Nor smoky. Nor smoke-like.

 

Second, the Brief Guide asserts that everything in the universe (the Earth included) was made from this 'smoke'.

If the author/editors mean that everything was formed out of this original 'smoke', then everything in the universe should be made up only of these TEN chemical elements.

 

Do I have to say it? Of course this is wrong!

 

There are 98 (ninety-eight) naturally occurring elements, not just 10. http://en.wikipedia..../Periodic_table

People and plants and planets are made up of much more than the original 10 elements generated in the Big Bang event.

As I have detailed above, the R and the S processes have chemically altered everything in the universe, converting these first 10 elements into the 98 we know of today. Our galaxy is made up exclusively of 2nd and 3rd generation stars, so it is completely false and inaccurate to state that anything we can see in the night sky was formed from this original 'smoke'.

 

That is quite wrong.

All of the stars we can see in our night sky have been formed out of chemically altered materials that came from earlier generations of stars. There is nothing original or pristine within our galaxy. Any of this unaltered, original 'smoke' is well beyond the limits of our galaxy and is therefore invisible to the naked eye.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This concludes my investigation into the Brief Guide's Astronomical claims.

 

I now await Eemaan's reply.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Stop Press!

 

Look what I found when I Googled the names on this page... http://www.islam-gui...frm-editors.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Ali_al-Tamimi

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302169.html

 

 

Please note that this book is still being used to trick the unwary into accepting the so-called 'scientific miracles' of Islam.

 

I will soon be sending a copy of this message to Eemaan, to see what her response is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello.

 

This is a copy of a message that I sent to Eemaan today.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Sent Today, 08:23 AM

 

Eemaan, on 08 April 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

 

 

bornagainathiest, on 07 April 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

 

Hello again Eemaan.

 

Shall I go ahead (again!) and point out how this book misuses scientific data to trick unwary people into thinking Islam is backed up by science, or will you do the honest thing and condemn it as false, wicked and un-Islamic?

 

http://www.islam-guide.com/

 

Yes.

I haven't forgotten about this book of lies... even after all this time.

Nor have I forgotten how you stubbornly refused to condemn it as false and misleading.

 

Please note that I am not insulting your faith by asking this of you.

What I am asking is that you stop defending this book's dishonest use of scientific information and pseudo-scientific disinformation.

If someone wants to become a Muslim, shouldn't they do so on the basis of the facts and not unscientific propaganda?

So, where does your loyalty lie - with the facts or with these lies?

 

BAA.

Hello again BBA. My loyalty are with the facts of the Qur'an. I have tried to made you see, and explained to you. If you would like to expose this "unscientific propaganda", you can start another thread. I am willing to take on the challenge.

Hello again Eemaan,

 

I am still waiting for you to take on the challenge I set for you about the book, "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam".

Are you still willing to do so? Please note that you asked us to be respectful towards you - therefore, can I expect you to be respectful towards me and at least let me know if you've decided to to change your mind and not take up the challenge?

 

Thank you.

 

Also, I am worried that the Brief Guide is being used as a tool to recruit followers to Islam.

If this is so and that book makes false scientific claims to 'prove' it's message, aren't these new believers being tricked into thinking that science 'proves' the Qu'ran - when it doesn't?

 

Could you also please answer this question?

Is the convicted terrorist, Ali Al-Timimi mentioned in this article... http://www.washingto...5071302169.html ...the same Ali Al-Timimi... http://www.islam-gui...frm-editors.htm ... who was an editor of the Brief Illustrated to Understanding Islam?

 

Should you choose to reply to me Eemaan, please also note that your written reassurances carry no weight at all with me. I simply do not trust you. Therefore, I am asking you once again to either condemn the Brief Guide as a pack of lies or to provide some corroborating scientific evidence that will back up the Brief Guide's claims about the Qu'ran. Those are your only two options.

 

Posting videos, linking to Islamic websites or anything else that is not bona-fide, peer-reviewed science is not acceptable. If the Qu'ran is backed up by proper science, then there will be independent sources of this information that are not affiliated to Islam in any way. Proper science can stand on it's own, regardless of culture, creed or race.

 

Lastly, Once I've sent you this message privately (to make sure you see it) I'll be posting it for all to see in the thread I started about the Brief Guide. It's up to you now.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Mitzer]

Thanks for the info, Born. I couldn't care less what's in the Koran, Bible or Torah. All nonsense in terms of creation/physical world. I am glad, though, there are those who find this rubbish and expose it! And I DO find it entertaining because it's so laughable...yet truly sad when you stop and think about it. Lol...looks like the "liars for Jesus" club has some competition (besides common sense).