Lets Talk Science

[DR OSMAN]

How do we measure this. We need to measure the angles first, angle ruler please. Write down the angle somewhere. Since it's a straight line we can measure the distance from one point to another pretty accurately as long we place the ruler properly angled. We can measure the space within the star with mini triangles and fill up the space untill we get an accurate reading and repeat it for each part of the triangle and finally the middle.

What I would love to know is how can u measure something so small that a ruler can't measure cause this will be damn tiny triangles? do u revert backward measuring? Or do u find the smallest unit on the ruler like a 'mm' and place 3 points at the same angle within the mini triangle and measure it.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Shapes get pretty crazy mathatmatically. What about when it has more then one variable to measure? like a tree, how do u find out how many leaves are in a given tree? u got the leafs to count, u got the irregular shaping of the leaves, and branches plus the over-all shape of the tree itself which may be irregular in shape and curves. Then you have the normal width and length to account for. So many different factors to contend with.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

I have been thinking about a circle. How in the world do we measure something like that? When something is a straight line or even angled like a pyramid, u can change your ruler to an angle or straight position. But what in the world can you do with something is 'circle'? bend the ruler into a circle lol? I guess u got two problems here. One is the actual 'curves' which will need point measures. U put two points like point a and point b and keep doing that untill you make ur loop around the circle. What fancy word science uses I am not sure but that's the only way to measure something that is curve like is to measure two points that are straight. Now will the curve be equal in all parts of the circle will be an interesting observation. But how do we find out the space within a circle that's another problem.

I am good at algorithm, I can clearly find out the problems and list them down and say OK we need this and this answered. Cause that's obviously right in-front of you.

Now the space within a circle will be interesting cause u cant just multiply it by length and width anymore cause where is the length and width it's not a straight line, it's a damn circle. So I thought about it what if we get a ruler and measure the width and length inside the circle and multiply it? like horizontal and vertical and then diagonal. Will this give an accurate answer on the space? how accurate? are the space dimensions different in different areas of the circle like the top right hand part of the circle is different to the bottom left hand side. Or do you put a point in the middle and create lines heading into different directions and measure it?

Lets talk about this guys, maths isn't hard at all, what is hard is the damn 'foreign' technical lingo and crap!!!

Numbers are interesting it's bendable. U can go up 0-1-2-3-4 into infinity but u can also go backwards -0.01 0-.02 0.03 all the to -1 and that goes back down again into an infinite loop -1.1 - 1.2 -1.3 till -2. The funny thing is breaks down even further like that 1.1 can go into 1.1.2 1.1.3 it's honestly crazy endless loop but I guess u need that cause somethings are very small to measure small hole in the ground and some things are very large like the universe

Will this video below address your thoughts/questions on the circle?

 

[Nalle]

This is for my science boys and the ones who actually contribute and make learn and think. @Nalle @BestCaseScenario @Black Dahlia @Naissur

I prefer you guys explain it cause the books are to confusing brothers. I am thinking about why does a car need oil? why not water or some other energy? why does it work well with certain energy sources and not others? What process happens to turn something like a liquid oil into fuel for a car or plane?

First and foremost, I really enjoy reading your questions. By far one of my favorite threads I enjoy reading when I come on here. Never stop asking questions, thanks in advance.

I don't know how much I can be of help. But the little I know about motor oil is that it works as a lubricant, it reduces the amount of friction generated by the moving engine components, and spreads the heat that is generated to the entire engine instead of concentrating it to one place. This helps the car's engine to not get overheated. You asked why not water or other energy, I think I read somewhere a long time ago, that the engine oil works as a "cleanser", as we already know oil is sticky and therefore it picks up dirt, grime, etc easier. I think that could be an explanation of why oil is the better option.
But technically, the engine can actually work without oil. (Youtube it, it is really interesting to see how far a car can run without oil before it breaks down.)
The oil is sometimes described as the "blood" of the car, it is essential, and just like in your body you have to have the right amount of oil in your car. And change it often. Otherwise, your car is doomed, and it will burn down.

As to answer your other question about the process of turning liquid oil into fuel, I would recommend you to read this article, it is really easy to understand.
http://www.world-petroleum.org/edu/223-how-is-crude-oil-turned-into-finished-products-

Crude oil is often a dark, sticky liquid that cannot be used without changing it. The first part of refining crude oil is to heat it until it boils. The boiling liquid is separated into different liquids and gases in a distillation column. These liquids are used to make petrol, paraffin, diesel fuel etc.

Crude oil is dark, have you also noticed how dark the lubricating oil is? (if you have a car lol).

 

[DR OSMAN]

Will this video below address your thoughts/questions on the circle?

The funny thing is how do you accurately find the circumfrence which is the middle point, because of this wrong, all your measurements will be incorrect also. Drawing a horizontal and vertical line in the circle and breaking it up into parts is ok only once u have the middle point accurate cause this is where u will start the measuring of space. You can clearly see the horizontal line and vertical line and once you measure this and multiply it you have a good accurate figure to tell you wat the space is for that part.

Interesting note to add boys is even when u do find each parts area you will just add it up together thru addition in the end to find the full area in the circle. For example a round cake, if you don't know the middle point, all your slices will not be perfect and have crooked edges and therefore your measurement of each slice will be wrong and ultimately your whole figure on the space within that cake is out of wack.

The key is to find the middle accurately, so what is your way to find the middle of the circle accurately?

 

[DR OSMAN]

Hey I was just reading about Algebra and this doesn't look like maths at all, it appears to be some algorithm or translation you use to find out the answer to a problem. It's like translating your problem into a 'set language'. For example how do I convert a leaf shape into my garden shape. You list down all the things you need done like the yard size is X and Leaf Size is Y = Unknown untill a way is figured out to compute it!!!

Am I heading in the right directions boys? Algebra isn't a real world tool that discovers anything but is used to break down your problem into a language anyone can read and understand. The rest is basic mathamatics addition, multiplication, division, substraction. I think I am right on this boys but I need confirmation.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Lets talk universe boys. It's obvious Space and Time must of come first and they are warped cause how can space move without time and what is time is mind boggling. We know time by it's effect such as matter ageing, but is space ageing? can space age? they say space had a beginning point therefore by default logic it must have an end point and therefore has aged '14 billion' years to be precise. They say space is expanding but I have never seen something subject to time that doesn't break down and age, you know the entropy rule which is all things gradually age and die from the smallest things we see like ants to the largest things we can observe like planets and stars.

So what elements can we say for certain that space is ageing rather then the logical it has a beginning and end. Can all things disappear today and space continues in it's expansion and never dies? I am not sure what ageing element we see in space to see this will come to and end. Do we see the wear/tear on space? do we see age marks? do we even know the properties of space and the ingredients that make it up? cause at least if we know the ingredients we can measure the ingredients and see if there is fluctation or if it's heading downwards and into death.

This issue of space and time and gravity are really troublesome topics for me. Because I think space can exist with time and just keep flowing on regardless if everything we know as matter, cosmic elements like black holes, gases, and whatever other elements exists disappeared today. If space can continue going on what's to say it doesn't reform itself at a later time. Should I speak to some scientists about these matters and do you think these are even worthy questions?

 

[BestCaseScenario]

First and foremost, I really enjoy reading your questions. By far one of my favorite threads I enjoy reading when I come on here. Never stop asking questions, thanks in advance.

I don't know how much I can be of help. But the little I know about motor oil is that it works as a lubricant, it reduces the amount of friction generated by the moving engine components, and spreads the heat that is generated to the entire engine instead of concentrating it to one place. This helps the car's engine to not get overheated. You asked why not water or other energy, I think I read somewhere a long time ago, that the engine oil works as a "cleanser", as we already know oil is sticky and therefore it picks up dirt, grime, etc easier. I think that could be an explanation of why oil is the better option.
But technically, the engine can actually work without oil. (Youtube it, it is really interesting to see how far a car can run without oil before it breaks down.)
The oil is sometimes described as the "blood" of the car, it is essential, and just like in your body you have to have the right amount of oil in your car. And change it often. Otherwise, your car is doomed, and it will burn down.

As to answer your other question about the process of turning liquid oil into fuel, I would recommend you to read this article, it is really easy to understand.
http://www.world-petroleum.org/edu/223-how-is-crude-oil-turned-into-finished-products-


Crude oil is dark, have you also noticed how dark the lubricating oil is? (if you have a car lol).

Do you fix your car problems when they are minor? Can you/Do you do basic maintenance? Like Coolant level checks, Oil level, Replace windshield wipers, tire pressure, tire replacement, brake oil level? Those are big money saving maintenance you can do and prevent a major damage to your car. Something nice about a female who gets grease on her hands. Really cool

I wish Somali females to become pro active in their daily life issues like this and don't rely on their male relatives often. The young women in particular. I am impressed.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

The funny thing is how do you accurately find the circumfrence which is the middle point, because of this wrong, all your measurements will be incorrect also. Drawing a horizontal and vertical line in the circle and breaking it up into parts is ok only once u have the middle point accurate cause this is where u will start the measuring of space. You can clearly see the horizontal line and vertical line and once you measure this and multiply it you have a good accurate figure to tell you wat the space is for that part.

Interesting note to add boys is even when u do find each parts area you will just add it up together thru addition in the end to find the full area in the circle. For example a round cake, if you don't know the middle point, all your slices will not be perfect and have crooked edges and therefore your measurement of each slice will be wrong and ultimately your whole figure on the space within that cake is out of wack.

The key is to find the middle accurately, so what is your way to find the middle of the circle accurately?

Did you find the video useful bro? If there was a reset button for life so people could choose a start over and make choices other than what they made before, mine would be making math my major and focus in school. Such a cool subject. I admire people who teach math and can answer every question in the text book. My reaction sitting in math classes was "Damn! they have no life other than math" lol.

I bought a book once that had an interesting title from amazon. The book promised a total understanding and explanation of what reality is based on Math. I tried to read most of it but because of my level of math back in those days(college advanced algebra), the book was daunting. Rereading it years after with some Cal classes was better.

Some people apparently can explain most things in nature mathematically.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

This was the book, still hard for people with less math in their background although it is worth to have it on your shelf.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Did you find the video useful bro? If there was a reset button for life so people could choose a start over and make choices other than what they made before, mine would be making math my major and focus in school. Such a cool subject. I admire people who teach math and can answer every question in the text book. My reaction sitting in math classes was "Damn! they have no life other than math" lol.

I bought a book once that had an interesting title from amazon. The book promised a total understanding and explanation of what reality is based on Math. I tried to read most of it but because of my level of math back in those days(college advanced algebra), the book was daunting. Rereading it years after with some Cal classes was better.

Some people apparently can explain most things in nature mathematically.

Algebra I think is just a way to translate your problem into a language people can understand. Algebra itself won't solve nothing and your still using other arimethic methods like addition, multiplication ,division, subtraction. I think it's just a tool to translate your problem. I don't it can be applied anywhere realistically and create something like 'geometry and shapes can' with architecture and 'calculus' which actually deals with curves which means up and down and all things to do with 'acceleration'.

But honestly what is maths? If you know numbers can go into infinity from 1-2-3-1000-1 million-trillion-qaudtrillion...and it can go into infinity again back down into the tiniest levels -1 -2 -3 million -4 trillion - 5 trillion. Plus it can go side-ways I guess cause within the number you can break it down futher and it continues along that way into infinity. You can basically see it's vicious 'infinity' loop with no end in sight. Plus u can observe the smallest thing we can see an ant and things even get smaller then that cause you break an ant into pieces or atoms and particles and particles break down further. We are literally talking 'real small' you know the 1 grain of a sand small type all the way to the whole universe we see. Imagine measuring the universe, I don't think you could take a surveyor camera like they do for roads, heck you can't even use those surveyors which probably just have mathamatical 'angles' and numbers, coordinates on the screen. U couldn't even use that with a 'mountain'.

Imagine measuring a mountain with all it's different shapes, dips, curves, etc. What sort of apparatus would you need for that? Imagine u were given this problem. How many trees in this mountain. U could measure the tree trunk and how much it takes with a measurement tape measure. But then there is all that space between trees and it's different spacing in between each tree.

Then you need to figure out the space of the whole mountain which is tricky with the curves and and dips. U would need to use calculus to measure two points in a straight line bit by bit to get an accurate measure on the curves and dips I guess.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Shapes get pretty crazy mathatmatically. What about when it has more then one variable to measure? like a tree, how do u find out how many leaves are in a given tree? u got the leafs to count, u got the irregular shaping of the leaves, and branches plus the over-all shape of the tree itself which may be irregular in shape and curves. Then you have the normal width and length to account for. So many different factors to contend with.

I found the answer to this question on a website. But to understand their solution, I had to find a parts -of - tree image to follow the suggested solution.

In Quotes:

"Step One: Area(in square feet) beneath the crown X 4 = Estimate of a total leaf surface area of the tree in square feet.
Step Two: Estimate how many individual leaves it would take to cover one square foot.
Step Three: Multiply that result by the total leaf surface, which gives you an approximation of the number of leaves on that tree


Examples:

Example 1: the sweetgum in my front yard has a crown 30 feet wide. The area under it is approximately 700 square feet. Multiplied by 4, I see that the tree has 2,800 square feet of leaf area. I’ll guess that 8 sweetgum leaves would cover one square foot. Multiplying 8 times 2,800 reveals that the tree has close to 22,400 leaves.


Example 2: A big oak tree might have a crown 50 feet wide. In that case, one could estimate the tree has 63,000 leaves. Necessarily, this is a rough guess because the crown shape of the tree is not taken into account (some trees are dome-shaped, some are tall and narrow, etc). However, this quick math should give you something to think about as you rake the last of the leaves from your lawn this week.

" End of Quotes.

http://www.walterreeves.com/gardening-q-and-a/tree-leaves-calculating-the-number/

 

[BestCaseScenario]

I never thought about this issue before. Learned something new chasing the answer online for this. I wondered about similar things before like how do they know the number of Atoms in the Universe, The number of Stars you can see in a clear night sky, The weight of the earth(remember there is no scale big enough to weigh the earth yet they knew how much it weighed). But I never thought of how many leaves on a tree on average.

This was cool bro. Thanks.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Well as for the stars I think they measured the space in each galaxy and estimated with this amount of space you fit this many stars. Obviously they need to know the star size itself and some are smaller and bigger, so it would be an estimate or an averaging process is what I think, Just like you measure a square and find out the area thru width x length you know how much area is in the square now. So u can estimate how many circles u can fit in there by knowing the circle sizes and if they are different sizes the circles I guess u need to figure out a way to average it out between big and small and come with an answer at the end that is an 'average' of the two and say 'here u go' but it is clearly estimation.

As for the weight of the earth, I am not sure but could they weigh one part of the earth the lightest area and since they know the area of the earth do the same thing with the heaviest part of the earth and average it out across the whole area of the earth which they should already know cause we can measure a circle and a sphere which wouldn't be all that different to a circle. Circumference and horizontal and vertical lines then you can break that further into 'pies' like a cake. If u can do with a cake that is a sphere shape, you can do with any matter that has that shape.

This process would not be 100% accurate but it's conservative approach. I guess

 

[DR OSMAN]

I never thought about this issue before. Learned something new chasing the answer online for this. I wondered about similar things before like how do they know the number of Atoms in the Universe, The number of Stars you can see in a clear night sky, The weight of the earth(remember there is no scale big enough to weigh the earth yet they knew how much it weighed). But I never thought of how many leaves on a tree on average.

This was cool bro. Thanks.

I know you disagree with evolution, but seriously what is your disagreement from? do you just don't like being termed an animal even though you have pretty much everything animals except a larger brain. Even the brain isn't something unique to you as we can see it in different animals at different sizes. So what is it your so against evolution for? I never understand, I suspect it's religious.

But tell me how do you honestly ignore that you share 96% of everything that makes you who you are in terms of biology plus even aspects of brain with a monkey? hands, feets, legs, bones, face, eyes, hair, blood, 96% basically. The only differences are very minor like the tail and so forth which you used to have also 'tail-bone'. How do you say you have no relation to this monkey or at least share a common ancestor? I mean having a common ancestor will make sense why you share so much as you inherited pretty much the same genes 100% and then you ventured off out of the trees and onto the plains and you started to slowly change to explain that 4% difference. Doesn't that make sense to you? I mean we can observe clearly sequence mutations occur today, why do you think people come out all fucked up with two heads and many toes and fingers. These genes change and if they can happen with this and u know the rule of infinity, what's to say it doesn't happen even further as we already know it does happen? then you got natural selection or the environment pushing genes that are beneficial so if those two heads are beneficial, the environment is going to allow it to pass on to the next generation or if everyone in that tribe dies except two headed people they will pass it on to their kids and they become the dominate 'feature' of humanity. Two headed people. We still get passed genes from our parents good and bad and the environment can 'trigger' it happen. Like mental illness if someone in ur family has and if you do drugs or have traumatic experience the environment will 'trigger' that gene.

Why do you guys focus on the 4% difference between you and monkeys and ignore the 96% similarities? that's why kills human, even a small difference they will look at and ignore everything else. Then you have early humans or archaic like neaderthals and homo erectus and that is even closer to us then monkey, they are basically on the same 'twig' not branch cause the branch is 'apes, monkeys',etc' those archaic humans are like on the same 'twig' as us and pretty much 98-99% share everything with us.

I mean a lion and other land animals are bit up on the tree branch away cause the similarities get further to 40% but u see as the similarities get further away, they go up further in the branch. Sea animals are properly right up at the top of the tree away from us, we are closer to land animals, but after land animals it's definitely marine life untill we get to what unites us all that simple bacteria and cell which runs through all of us regardless and that's where 'life' orginated. How does this not make sense to you? it's beautiful logical.

Plus how can you explain every living thing has 'bacteria' yet not share a common ancestor in bacteria? How can u deny a lion has exactly the same eyes as you, did his develop from somewhere else whiles your somewhere else? or was there a common ancestor who must of given us eyes?

I really wanna know your views on this topic cause evolution is a 'very strong' theory bordering on 'FACTS' basically. Infact nothing religious or scientific has come along with any new theory that is as beautiful and logical to this one based on the CLEAR observations which I stated about our similarities with animals. Not a single one comes close bro!!!

What's wrong with this

 

[BestCaseScenario]

Well as for the stars I think they measured the space in each galaxy and estimated with this amount of space you fit this many stars. Obviously they need to know the star size itself and some are smaller and bigger, so it would be an estimate or an averaging process is what I think, Just like you measure a square and find out the area thru width x length you know how much area is in the square now. So u can estimate how many circles u can fit in there by knowing the circle sizes and if they are different sizes the circles I guess u need to figure out a way to average it out between big and small and come with an answer at the end that is an 'average' of the two and say 'here u go' but it is clearly estimation.

As for the weight of the earth, I am not sure but could they weigh one part of the earth the lightest area and since they know the area of the earth do the same thing with the heaviest part of the earth and average it out across the whole area of the earth which they should already know cause we can measure a circle and a sphere which wouldn't be all that different to a circle. Circumference and horizontal and vertical lines then you can break that further into 'pies' like a cake. If u can do with a cake that is a sphere shape, you can do with any matter that has that shape.

This process would not be 100% accurate but it's conservative approach. I guess

Since earth is spherical, its mass(weight) is concentrated at the center. There is no lighter or heavier side. From Popular general physics sources online, they use NEWTON's law of universal gravitation to measure earth's weight.

Mass of the Earth = (Radius of the Earth Squared x 9.81)/Universal Gravitational Force(G)


From the Original newton's formula below




And Solving for the big M(mass of the earth) will give





The E's stand for Earth. So M sub E means Mass of the earth, R sub E means Radius of the Earth.



Earth weighs 6 000 000 000 000 000 000 Kg. That is 6 septillion Kilo Grams of Weight.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

btw, you and me and everything on earth is included in that weight estimate because we are made of the same thing earth is made of except we have different forms and shapes(trees, cars, sea etc), so the weight is not only earth by itself but with everything on it included.

 

[BestCaseScenario]

I know you disagree with evolution, but seriously what is your disagreement from? do you just don't like being termed an animal even though you have pretty much everything animals except a larger brain. Even the brain isn't something unique to you as we can see it in different animals at different sizes. So what is it your so against evolution for? I never understand, I suspect it's religious.

But tell me how do you honestly ignore that you share 96% of everything that makes you who you are in terms of biology plus even aspects of brain with a monkey? hands, feets, legs, bones, face, eyes, hair, blood, 96% basically. The only differences are very minor like the tail and so forth which you used to have also 'tail-bone'. How do you say you have no relation to this monkey or at least share a common ancestor? I mean having a common ancestor will make sense why you share so much as you inherited pretty much the same genes 100% and then you ventured off out of the trees and onto the plains and you started to slowly change to explain that 4% difference. Doesn't that make sense to you? I mean we can observe clearly sequence mutations occur today, why do you think people come out all fucked up with two heads and many toes and fingers. These genes change and if they can happen with this and u know the rule of infinity, what's to say it doesn't happen even further as we already know it does happen? then you got natural selection or the environment pushing genes that are beneficial so if those two heads are beneficial, the environment is going to allow it to pass on to the next generation or if everyone in that tribe dies except two headed people they will pass it on to their kids and they become the dominate 'feature' of humanity. Two headed people. We still get passed genes from our parents good and bad and the environment can 'trigger' it happen. Like mental illness if someone in ur family has and if you do drugs or have traumatic experience the environment will 'trigger' that gene.

Why do you guys focus on the 4% difference between you and monkeys and ignore the 96% similarities? that's why kills human, even a small difference they will look at and ignore everything else. Then you have early humans or archaic like neaderthals and homo erectus and that is even closer to us then monkey, they are basically on the same 'twig' not branch cause the branch is 'apes, monkeys',etc' those archaic humans are like on the same 'twig' as us and pretty much 98-99% share everything with us.

I mean a lion and other land animals are bit up on the tree branch away cause the similarities get further to 40% but u see as the similarities get further away, they go up further in the branch. Sea animals are properly right up at the top of the tree away from us, we are closer to land animals, but after land animals it's definitely marine life untill we get to what unites us all that simple bacteria and cell which runs through all of us regardless and that's where 'life' orginated. How does this not make sense to you? it's beautiful logical.

Plus how can you explain every living thing has 'bacteria' yet not share a common ancestor in bacteria? How can u deny a lion has exactly the same eyes as you, did his develop from somewhere else whiles your somewhere else? or was there a common ancestor who must of given us eyes?

I really wanna know your views on this topic cause evolution is a 'very strong' theory bordering on 'FACTS' basically. Infact nothing religious or scientific has come along with any new theory that is as beautiful and logical to this one based on the CLEAR observations which I stated about our similarities with animals. Not a single one comes close bro!!!

What's wrong with this

How a muslim looks at evolution is different from how an atheist looks at it. You mentioned the focus on differences but in truth, a muslim sees those differences as intentionally made not born out of accident by process of elimination, or by adaptation without intellectual involvement. A Muslim's take on nature is simpler and more rational than an atheist's take on it. There is no rationality behind the idea that things happen on their own without a process of measurements, careful design, changes that are willfully made per evidence to suit the creature, and functionality that obviously shows purpose in its work. In all honesty, to be human is to accept an intelligent design, and that fits in with human perception so easily. We never assume something happens on their own in real life. Do we? Why make the exception?

To me, people are looking at the same thing(Nature) but coming out with different conclusions. The difference between man and ape are willfully designed for each to serve their own purpose, so their 98% similarity does not account for the 2% difference that actually gives mankind their unique characteristics as human beings. An argument can be made about any other animal that shares large margins of genetic data with humans and say humans descended from those animals. In fact, most animals do share genetic similarities with humans. AFTER ALL, IF THERE IS ONE CREATOR WHO CREATED ALL THINGS IN NATURE, It is easier to accept that all these creatures have similar design with slight differences in each to serve a purpose that suits them in their life and in the environment they live in. For a muslim, that designer is God the creator, for an atheist, that is a non entity called Nature. Does nature have intelligence to anticipate needs of a living creature no matter how small or big that creature is? Believe in a creator is like an icing on a cake saxib. No matter how much insight humans get into nature, that question is always there about who is behind all of this... A muslim assigns that to Allah, an atheist to Nature. So who is nature? How does nature know and planned and plans for all necessities in life? Can we say hello to NATURE and greet? Does that nature have a source we can look at to see if it made any claims of ownership to all these wonders? Obviously, if nature is this smart to come up with this universal wonder, and with the complexity of life, it sure can speak to us and may want to come out of the mystery right? Like Allah did according to Islam.

Let us be realistic and use our logic as human beings. Believe in God makes more sense to a human than otherwise. That is my opinion saxib, the one you asked for.

 

[DR OSMAN]

How a muslim looks at evolution is different from how an atheist looks at it. You mentioned the focus on differences but in truth, a muslim sees those differences as intentionally made not born out of accident by process of elimination, or by adaptation without intellectual involvement. A Muslim's take on nature is simpler and more rational than an atheist's take on it. There is no rationality behind the idea that things happen on their own without a process of measurements, careful design, changes that are willfully made per evidence to suit the creature, and functionality that obviously shows purpose in its work. In all honesty, to be human is to accept an intelligent design, and that fits in with human perception so easily. We never assume something happens on their own in real life. Do we? Why make the exception?

To me, people are looking at the same thing(Nature) but coming out with different conclusions. The difference between man and ape are willfully designed for each to serve their own purpose, so their 98% similarity does not account for the 2% difference that actually gives mankind their unique characteristics as human beings. An argument can be made about any other animal that shares large margins of genetic data with humans and say humans descended from those animals. In fact, most animals do share genetic similarities with humans. AFTER ALL, IF THERE IS ONE CREATOR WHO CREATED ALL THINGS IN NATURE, It is easier to accept that all these creatures have similar design with slight differences in each to serve a purpose that suits them in their life and in the environment they live in. For a muslim, that designer is God the creator, for an atheist, that is a non entity called Nature. Does nature have intelligence to anticipate needs of a living creature no matter how small or big that creature is? Believe in a creator is like an icing on a cake saxib. No matter how much insight humans get into nature, that question is always there about who is behind all of this... A muslim assigns that to Allah, an atheist to Nature. So who is nature? How does nature know and planned and plans for all necessities in life? Can we say hello to NATURE and greet? Does that nature have a source we can look at to see if it made any claims of ownership to all these wonders? Obviously, if nature is this smart to come up with this universal wonder, and with the complexity of life, it sure can speak to us and may want to come out of the mystery right? Like Allah did according to Islam.

Let us be realistic and use our logic as human beings. Believe in God makes more sense to a human than otherwise. That is my opinion saxib, the one you asked for.

Your mixing up the how with the why. Science is dealing with the how we got to the state we are and the relationship with share with others in the animal kingdom. It's trying to explain why did things get diverse thru 'how' and experimentation. It's not going into the big question of 'creator'. Besides lets be honest a creator isn't testable, can we test Allah? obviously not, so we must use other means to test what we can and what better way then through observation of our similarities, testing our genes and seeing how close it is, testing change and working out how nature does it. When they say nature they mean 'environment'. If you step outside on a hot day, mother nature will burn you. If you step out on a freezing day mother nature will freeze you. It's only you and up to you to 'adapt' by going into a shade or getting heavier clothes. Nature isn't changing, it's us living creatures that must adapt. The sun won't just drop it's heat just because you walked into the scene, notice we are the ones who are changing since nature is the ultimate 'ruler' not us cause nature is changing for us, we are the ones changing for nature bro!!! It can be anything as small as hot day or cold day all the way to phenonemas like hurricanes, volcanos, and natural disasters.

Now can you answer why do you see sequence mutations change, surely it's not sequential to come out with '2 heads' or 20 toes or missing all limbs? surely this isn't apart of the ultimate design is it? this must be nature selecting what gene plus the mutation the person will come with. For example genes is like an 'eye' but the color of the eye is 'mutations'. Now coming out with two heads that's a mutation gone wrong with the gene. If we can accept that changes occurs at within species, why can't u accept if u apply 'time' and 'environmental' factors that these changes can become wider changes. Please note the body can't handle a huge change to cross from one species to another. Besides the process isn't really going from one animal to another. We start as one and then diverge from that based on natural selection on our genes in response to the environment.

So for example we don't start as 'monkey's we share a common father with monkeys who gave me and monkey exactly identical genes. But as me and you left the trees we start to 'diverge' from monkey and develop new genes or mutations. So we are not criss-crossing into different animals, we are actually 'leaving' them and start to develop on our own. So we dont go from monkey to human we go from monkey and monkey then one monkey leaves and starts to develop unique features like the 'two heads' or '20 fingers' and rinse and repeat the process of reproduction, you see where there is heading.

 

[DR OSMAN]

btw, you and me and everything on earth is included in that weight estimate because we are made of the same thing earth is made of except we have different forms and shapes(trees, cars, sea etc), so the weight is not only earth by itself but with everything on it included.

Interesting way to measure weight. So the theory is all the different sides of the earth converge to the center and therefore if u have the center weighted all u need to do is then account for gravity. I even forgot about gravity lol. I am still studying and reading on this and cannot find anything that actually clicks or makes sense.

The strange thing is this it will be good if this can be demonstrated with a smaller sphere object or something close to the earth shape. Besides just weighing the center won't tell u much but a accurate figure of the center, there needs to some arimethic applied across the whole area of the earth once you have the center figure. Cause u can measure or something round and small like a ball but u do need to know the area of the ball and apply that figure and spread it across the whole radius of the ball. Well that's what I think, I could be wrong but I am not sure how you can get a center figure and assume it's accurate without taking that figure and applying it across the whole radius of the object.