₦airaland Forum

Cockatrices, fiery serpents. Where are all these creatures mentioned the God's holy books - Torah, Bible and Quran?


Are these creatures alive now, dead and extinct or just figments of the imagination of the writers of these books?

According to the Quran (72: 1-15) some jinns flew up to heaven to eavesdrop on the reading of the Quran taking place there. Is that true?

Meteorites are flaming darts thrown by angels at jinns to keep them out of heaven. True?

These jinns overhead the message that Allah is one and had no wife or children. True?

John 14: 13

I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.



Looks like you are making the mistake of thinking that whatever may be important to you would seem so in the eyes of god. The fact the he has not answered you wishes so far, suggest that he knows better than to have you have a job.

May his "soul" rest in peace. And may his Pastor son not use this passing to garner sympathy and promote is "ministry".

jennykadri:
when will people start ignoring d likes of huxley,when?

*sighs at d people replying his posts*

Nothing new here.  After they have plagiarised other religions, upon being called to rights, they respond by burying their heads in the sand and shake their smelly arses at their critics in a gesture of defuddled defiance.

So it is not new that they do not take responsibility for the falsehood they peddle.

Is this a fair exchange - money for blood of JC? Why would an 3*omni need all this money for? What is all this money used for by the church authorities, besides funding lavish lifestyles. Would be interesting to see what proportions of the monies goes into funding purely humanitarian work, not advertising evangelising and proslytising work.

olabowale:
@Huxley: « on: October 07, 2008, 11:05 PM »
Below was the question you asked,concerning the knowledge of Muhammad (as) , about the Origin of man. And after it, was my response to your question!


A person have to be genuinely practice dishonesty, like you to have claimed that I did not answer your question, as I did above! However when you put a set of irrelevant question as the follow up, I withdrew my interest in participating with you on your "charade!"

It is true that I spend quite a lot of time on Nairaland. But I also know when I should not respond to foolishness. How does simply asking about the knowledge of Muhammad about the start of humanity turns out to the exact time that Adam was created, and all the silly DNA and others that you listed?

Allah who has complete knowledge of things, who is the Creator of all things, created things that are time and place appropriate, providing to us proofs of His Lordship and capability to do as He pleases.

Some of the questions listed you have dubious " answers," for them already. Why bother to put them as if there is new discoveries that you are seeking? This is where your deceitful mind is at play.

Shows just how delusional you are.  You are prepared to make unsupported claims about the origin of mankind but are unwilling to engage in scholarship that might challenge your barbaric and superstitious beliefs.

Ordinarily I would be surprised, but given what I have come to learn about some Muslims and Christians, their fear of cognitive disonance is quite strong, thus their unwillingness to engage any form of scholarship.

You are free to believe any sort of excreble stuff that tickles your addled mind.  It is a shame that you don't keep such beliefs under your hat but seek to propagate it, converting the weak and gullible to this barbarism. Just think of what is missing from the New York skyline.

Mullah Olabowale,

I am still awaiting me creaming. Can you hurry up please?

olabowale:
You are being ridiculous. I have a business torun. I will not have time for all these silliness that you are into. I have to make payrolls. You are all over the places with your questions. Its a waste of my time. I aint got that much time to waste.

You may have a business to run but you still spend a lot of time here and on excreble stuff from your religion. Why don't you invest some time on more salubrious material, rather than the dogma of your religion.

The reason I asked these questions are simple - I want to establish the intellectual nature of the character with whom I am to engage in a debate. For it is a waste of time engaging with someone whose mindset belongs to the 7th century.

I trust you shall find some time and engage even one of the question. If there are challenging, shout out.


I really look forward to your creaming me

Have a good day.

I was disappointed with your answer to my question.  I asked;

How long ago did allah do the creating business? 

And I would like you to be more specific, by give numerical dates (approximation to the nearest ten, hundred, thousand or million may be acceptable) and some general background as to how such dates makes sense and fits in the grand scheme of things.

You claim to be a learned man, and such men are impressed not by glibe statements, but those that have the hallmark of authenticity.


In fact, while you are thinking about the previous question, I want you to also begin to formulate some answers to the following:

1) Why are (were) there no native placental mammals native to Australia? All mammals native to Australia are pouched marsupials.

2) Where does petroleum oils used in cars, for instance, come from?

3) How far is the Sun from the earth?

4) What are stromatolites?

5) What is a fossil?

6) What are X-rays and have you ever been to a modern hospital were radiography is used?

7) What is DNA?

8.) Do you know the meaning of the word "forensic"?

9) Do you own a TV and a computer?

10) Do you know what Cosmic Microwave Background is?




Some food for thought there.

Have a good

Basically, what god has put together, no one shall (and can) put asunder. This is what it is about.

What are the Mohammedans so scared of. They have gone and blocked similar thread on their section.

Is this the best you guys can muster? I asked a relatively simply question, but you you hide your heads in the sand. I wonder what this reminds me of!

And you were gonna cream me. Well, you are have not even got a cow yet.

olabowale:
Before Adam was created. By the way, human/man was the last of all creations! You didnt know that, did you? And man was created on Friday, between, after Asri prayer time and before sunset. You should read man. You are think, light, today. Whats wrong, Huxley? lol.

This is Islamic section. You already left Christian section, with their fantasy. There is no wizard of Oz, here Dorothy. You are not in Kansas, anymore.

What shall I read? Stuff from the cesspit of your religion? You might have read these stuff but you clearly lack thinking skills as evidenced from you avoidance of my simple question.

huxley:
How long ago did allah do all this creating business?

Show me how your reading will help you answer this question. Don't evade.

How long ago did allah do all this creating business?

olabowale:
@Huxley: I want to know about the first part; Jesus being the creator of Adam and Eve in an area of today's Iraq. lol. Your question sometimes is thought provoking. I wonder why you have not done the same in Islam. Then I will cream you!

Its a challenge, with any arrogance, but being assured that Allah will bring success.

Hey, I have raised same question on the Muslim section. Why don't you go give it a try?

How knowledgeable would Mohammed have been about the true origins of humankind? Would he have believed the Genesis claims that he created Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden, located somewhere in the Middle East?

How knowledgeable would Jesus have been about the true origins of humankind? Would he have believed the Genesis claims that he created Adam & Eve in the garden of Eden, located somewhere in the Middle East?

What would Jesus make of the almost unimpeachable evidence that the origins of humankind is Africa, between 150000 and 200000 years ago.

If there was no Adam, Eve, Serpent, Eden, etc, etc - what would that do to Jesus's theology of salvation, redemption and punishment?

Great stuff. Another beam of light pushing back the darkness of reality.

Looks like there was some kind of epiphany about the question of Big Bang and the origin of matter, especially with the timely contribution of KAG.

I trust this is so, and that our newly acquired knowledge will stand us in good stead in all our future endeavours and will help brighten the path to a better understanding of reality.

Wow, there was some debate here. How come I missed it all?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth
By Martin Bojowald

Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bounce—an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects

Atoms are now such a commonplace idea that it is hard to remember how radical they used to seem. When scientists first hypothesized atoms centuries ago, they despaired of ever observing anything so small, and many questioned whether the concept of atoms could even be called scientific. Gradually, however, evidence for atoms accumulated and reached a tipping point with Albert Einstein's 1905 analysis of Brownian motion, the random jittering of dust grains in a fluid. Even then, it took another 20 years for physicists to develop a theory explaining atoms—namely, quantum mechanics—and another 30 for physicist Erwin Müller to make the first microscope images of them. Today entire industries are based on the characteristic properties of atomic matter.

Physicists' understanding of the composition of space and time is following a similar path, but several steps behind. Just as the behavior of materials indicates that they consist of atoms, the behavior of space and time suggests that they, too, have some fine-scale structure—either a mosaic of spacetime "atoms" or some other filigree work. Material atoms are the smallest indivisible units of chemical compounds; similarly, the putative space atoms are the smallest indivisible units of distance. They are generally thought to be about 10–35 meter in size, far too tiny to be seen by today's most powerful instruments, which probe distances as short as 10–18 meter. Consequently, many scientists question whether the concept of atomic spacetime can even be called scientific. Undeterred, other researchers are coming up with possible ways to detect such atoms indirectly.

The most promising involve observations of the cosmos. If we imagine rewinding the expansion of the universe back in time, the galaxies we see all seem to converge on a single infinitesimal point: the big bang singularity. At this point, our current theory of gravity—Einstein's general theory of relativity—predicts that the universe had an infinite density and temperature. This moment is sometimes sold as the beginning of the universe, the birth of matter, space and time. Such an interpretation, however, goes too far, because the infinite values indicate that general relativity itself breaks down. To explain what really happened at the big bang, physicists must transcend relativity. We must develop a theory of quantum gravity, which would capture the fine structure of spacetime to which relativity is blind.

The details of that structure came into play under the dense conditions of the primordial universe, and traces of it may survive in the present-day arrangement of matter and radiation. In short, if spacetime atoms exist, it will not take centuries to find the evidence, as it did for material atoms. With some luck, we may know within the coming decade.

Pieces of Space
Physicists have devised several candidate theories of quantum gravity, each applying quantum principles to general relativity in a distinct way. My work focuses on the theory of loop quantum gravity ("loop gravity," for short), which was developed in the 1990s using a two-step procedure. First, theorists mathematically reformulated general relativity to resemble the classical theory of electromagnetism; the eponymous "loops" of the theory are analogues of electric and magnetic field lines. Second, following innovative procedures, some that are akin to the mathematics of knots, they applied quantum principles to the loops. The resulting quantum gravity theory predicts the existence of spacetime atoms [see "Atoms of Space and Time," by Lee Smolin; Scientific American, January 2004].

Other approaches, such as string theory and so-called causal dynamical triangulations, do not predict spacetime atoms per se but suggest other ways that sufficiently short distances might be indivisible [see "The Great Cosmic Roller-Coaster Ride," by Cliff Burgess and Fernando Quevedo; Scientific American, November 2007, and "The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe," by Jan Ambjørn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll; Scientific American, July]. The differences among these theories have given rise to controversy, but to my mind the theories are not contradictory so much as complementary. String theory, for example, is very useful for a unified view of particle interactions, including gravity when it is weak. For the purpose of disentangling what happens at the singularity, where gravity is strong, the atomic constructions of loop gravity are more useful.

The theory's power is its ability to capture the fluidity of spacetime. Einstein's great insight was that spacetime is no mere stage on which the drama of the universe unfolds. It is an actor in its own right. It not only determines the motion of bodies within the universe, but it evolves. A complicated interplay between matter and spacetime ensues. Space can grow and shrink.

Loop gravity extends this insight into the quantum realm. It takes our familiar understanding of particles of matter and applies it to the atoms of space and time, providing a unified view of our most basic concepts. For instance, the quantum theory of electromagnetism describes a vacuum devoid of particles such as photons, and each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new particle. In the quantum theory of gravity, a vacuum is the absence of spacetime—an emptiness so thorough we can scarcely imagine it. Loop gravity describes how each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new atom of spacetime.

The spacetime atoms form a dense, ever shifting mesh. Over large distances, their dynamism gives rise to the evolving universe of classical general relativity. Under ordinary conditions, we never notice the existence of these spacetime atoms; the mesh spacing is so tight that it looks like a continuum. But when spacetime is packed with energy, as it was at the big bang, the fine structure of spacetime becomes a factor, and the predictions of loop gravity diverge from those of general relativity.

Attracted to Repulsion
Applying the theory is an extremely complex task, so my colleagues and I use simplified versions that capture the truly essential features of the universe, such as its size, and ignore details of lesser interest. We have also had to adapt many of the standard mathematical tools of physics and cosmology. For instance, theoretical physicists commonly describe the world using differential equations, which specify the rate of change of physical variables, such as density, at each point in the spacetime continuum. But when spacetime is grainy, we instead use so-called difference equations, which break up the continuum into discrete intervals. These equations describe how a universe climbs up the ladder of sizes that it is allowed to take as it grows. When I set out to analyze the cosmological implications of loop gravity in 1999, most researchers expected that these difference equations would simply reproduce old results in disguise. But unexpected features soon emerged.

Gravity is typically an attractive force. A ball of matter tends to collapse under its own weight, and if its mass is sufficiently large, gravity overpowers all other forces and compresses the ball into a singularity, such as the one at the center of a black hole. But loop gravity suggests that the atomic structure of spacetime changes the nature of gravity at very high energy densities, making it repulsive. Imagine space as a sponge and mass and energy as water. The porous sponge can store water but only up to a certain amount. Fully soaked, it can absorb no more and instead repels water. Similarly, an atomic quantum space is porous and has a finite amount of storage space for energy. When energy densities become too large, repulsive forces come into play. The continuous space of general relativity, in contrast, can store a limitless amount of energy.

Because of the quantum-gravitational change in the balance of forces, no singularity—no state of infinite density—can ever arise. According to this model, matter in the early universe had a very high but finite density, the equivalent of a trillion suns in every proton-size region. At such extremes, gravity acted as a repulsive force, causing space to expand; as densities moderated, gravity switched to being the attractive force we all know. Inertia has kept the expansion going to the present day.

In fact, the repulsive gravity caused space to expand at an accelerating rate. Cosmological observations appear to require such an early period of acceleration, known as cosmic inflation. As the universe expands, the force driving inflation slowly subsides. Once the acceleration ends, surplus energy is transferred to ordinary matter, which begins to fill the universe in a process called reheating. In current models, inflation is somewhat ad hoc—added in to conform to observations—but in loop quantum cosmology, it is a natural consequence of the atomic nature of spacetime. Acceleration automatically occurs when the universe is small and its porous nature still quite significant.

Time before Time
Without a singularity to demarcate the beginning of time, the history of the universe may extend further back than cosmologists once thought possible. Other physicists have reached a similar conclusion [see "The Myth of the Beginning of Time," by Gabriele Veneziano; Scientific American, May 2004], but only rarely do their models fully resolve the singularity; most models, including those from string theory, require assumptions as to what might have happened at this uneasy spot. Loop gravity, in contrast, is able to trace what took place at the singularity. Loop-based scenarios, though admittedly simplified, are founded on general principles and avoid introducing new ad hoc assumptions.

Using the difference equations, we can try to reconstruct the deep past. One possible scenario is that the initial high-density state arose when a preexisting universe collapsed under the attractive force of gravity. The density grew so high that gravity switched to being repulsive, and the universe started expanding again. Cosmologists refer to this process as a bounce.

The first bounce model investigated thoroughly was an idealized case in which the universe was highly symmetrical and contained just one type of matter. Particles had no mass and did not interact with one another. Simplified though this model was, understanding it initially required a set of numerical simulations that were completed only in 2006 by Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski and Parampreet Singh, all at Pennsylvania State University. They considered the propagation of waves representing the universe both before and after the big bang. The model clearly showed that a wave would not blindly follow the classical trajectory into the abyss of a singularity but would stop and turn back once the repulsion of quantum gravity set in.

An exciting result of these simulations was that the notorious uncertainty of quantum mechanics seemed to remain fairly muted during the bounce. A wave remained localized throughout the bounce rather than spreading out, as quantum waves usually do. Taken at face value, this result suggested that the universe before the bounce was remarkably similar to our own: governed by general relativity and perhaps filled with stars and galaxies. If so, we should be able to extrapolate from our universe back in time, through the bounce, and deduce what came before, much as we can reconstruct the paths of two billiard balls before a collision based on their paths after the collision. We do not need to know each and every atomic-scale detail of the collision.

Unfortunately, my subsequent analysis dashed this hope. The model as well as the quantum waves used in the numerical simulations turned out to be a special case. In general, I found that waves spread out and that quantum effects were strong enough to be reckoned with. So the bounce was not a brief push by a repulsive force, like the collision of billiard balls. Instead it may have represented the emergence of our universe from an almost unfathomable quantum state—a world in highly fluctuating turmoil. Even if the preexisting universe was once very similar to ours, it passed through an extended period during which the density of matter and energy fluctuated strongly and randomly, scrambling everything.

The fluctuations before and after the big bang were not strongly related to each other. The universe before the big bang could have been fluctuating very differently than it did afterward, and those details did not survive the bounce. The universe, in short, has a tragic case of forgetfulness. It may have existed before the big bang, but quantum effects during the bounce wiped out almost all traces of this prehistory.

Some Scraps of Memory
This picture of the big bang is subtler than the classical view of the singularity. Whereas general relativity simply fails at the singularity, loop quantum gravity is able to handle the extreme conditions there. The big bang is no longer a physical beginning or a mathematical singularity, but it does put a practical limitation on our knowledge. Whatever survives cannot provide a complete view of what came before.

Frustrating as this may be, it might be a conceptual blessing. In physical systems as in daily life, disorder tends to increase. This principle, known as the second law of thermodynamics, is an argument against an eternal universe. If order has been decreasing for an infinite span of time, the universe should by now be so disorganized that structures we see in galaxies as well as on Earth would be all but impossible. The right amount of cosmic forgetfulness may come to the rescue by presenting the young, growing universe with a clean slate irrespective of all the mess that may have built up before.

According to traditional thermodynamics, there is no such thing as a truly clean slate; every system always retains a memory of its past in the configuration of its atoms [see "The Cosmic Origins of Time's Arrow," by Sean M. Carroll; Scientific American, June]. But by allowing the number of spacetime atoms to change, loop quantum gravity allows the universe more freedom to tidy up than classical physics would suggest.

All that is not to say that cosmologists have no hope of probing the quantum-gravitational period. Gravitational waves and neutrinos are especially promising tools, because they barely interact with matter and therefore penetrated the primordial plasma with minimal loss. These messengers might well bring us news from a time near to, or even before, the big bang.

One way to look for gravitational waves is by studying their imprint on the cosmic microwave background radiation [see "Echoes from the Big Bang," by Robert R. Caldwell and Marc Kamionkowski; Scientific American, January 2001]. If quantum-gravitational repulsive gravity drove cosmic inflation, these observations might find some hint of it. Theorists must also determine whether this novel source of inflation could reproduce other cosmological measurements, especially of the early density distribution of matter seen in the cosmic microwave background.

At the same time, astronomers can look for the spacetime analogues of random Brownian motion. For instance, quantum fluctuations of spacetime could affect the propagation of light over long distances. According to loop gravity, a light wave cannot be continuous; it must fit on the lattice of space. The smaller the wavelength, the more the lattice distorts it. In a sense, the spacetime atoms buffet the wave. As a consequence, light of different wavelengths travels at different speeds. Although these differences are tiny, they may add up during a long trip. Distant sources such as gamma-ray bursts offer the best hope of seeing this effect [see "Window on the Extreme Universe," by William B. Atwood, Peter F. Michelson and Steven Ritz; Scientific American, December 2007].

In the case of material atoms, more than 25 centuries elapsed between the first speculative suggestions of atoms by ancient philosophers and Einstein's analysis of Brownian motion, which firmly established atoms as the subject of experimental science. The delay should not be as long for spacetime atoms.

Can we (humans) know and comprehend the nature of reality? I submit that we can.

Can we know and understand all it is possible to know? Absolutely NOT.

But the fact that we do not currently understand the workings of a given natural phenomenon does not mean that it shall for ever remain unknown to us. Many years ago, it was not know for certain whether atoms exist (in spite of speculation by the Epicurians). The notions of DNA, germs, etc, were unknown.

Now, it is not uncommon for some people to express opinion of the form;

I simply cannot see how such-and such works

This is generally called "Argument from Personal Incredulity"

For example, "I simply cannot see how humans evolved from other lifeforms", or "I simply cannot see how the universe could be expanding".

Whilst the phenomenon may be difficult to comprehend and sometimes counter-intuitive, someone's inability to "see" it does not preclude the occurrence of the event.

A_K_O:
This is simply ridiculous!

Can you justify why you think this is ridiculous. C'mon man, make an effort. Defend your god.

Why you you consider King a false prophet? What is your standard of judgment?

Would you have considered Moses a false prophet? Do you know how many people Moses killed? I don't murder rules one out as being god's messenger.

Good article. Shows clearly what type of god the god-followers are worshiping, ehm!

On some counts, the dead toll on God's side is about 10 million, while on Satan's side it is about 10 (all in the book of Job).

Satan is the great liberator from slavery, ignorance, delusion, etc. God, the imprisoner, tyrant, demented oppressor, etc.

That Christians and their ilk cannot see this , shows the extent to which they have been dupe, mesmerised, hypnotised by superstitious dogma.

KAG:
On the origins of matter, Huxley is right about matter not being a general part of the Big Bang theory, as the Big Bang theory can exist and be unfalsifiable without any reasonable answer for the origin of matter existing, and more importantly, matter would only have come into existence after the Big Bang occured. A good while ago I posted a brief summary of how matter may have arisen - if anyone cares to find it, that would be nice. Also, if anyone is interested, reading about baryogenesis may give some insight into possible explanations for the origins of matter.

KAG, you have been gone a long while. How are ya?

Thanks for this contribution. I have been racking my brain trying to remember baryogenesis. Many thanks for that and I hope others find it useful too.

So more interesting stuff here

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

(1) Okay, granted. Others have stated the following:

"The Big Bang describes how this fireball grew to form all the stars and planets
we see around us now." (BBC Science & Nature)


(2) Please note: I said earlier that the Big Bang theory is not equal to the ORIGIN of the Universe:

"Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion,
the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such
an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of
the universe since that instant." (Wikipedia)

The evolution of the universe is not the same thing as the ORIGIN of the universe!!!



Dear huxley, we may be slobbered with accusations of "ignorance", and we are thankful. But like I said:

_____[pilgrim.1's quote earlier]_____________________________________

"there is nothing you want to tell the public here about the BB theory that
we don't already know . . . if you wanted to discuss the Big Bang theory,
no one would bother you - we already know where to go for info about such.
______________________________________________________________


Nothing personal. . hubris and extremum are not ideal positions to assume; and we had better learn to be thinkers and not the victims of needless arguments.

Warmest regards.

I think you have touched on something here. I know to some extent our wrangle is about semantics. I used the word origin, which strictly speaking is the wrong word.

I was going to use the word evolution, but from previous experience, the moment the e-word (ie evolution ) is mentioned, the uninitiated take it to mean biological evolotion. That is why I chose "origin" instead.

pilgrim.1:
@huxley,

The point was that the device you employed there was a very poor 'shock method'.

This is quite an excuse, huxley. Are you so polarized as to assume that no theist is involved in science? What is this brashness as to taking a "scientific consensus" and making it a tool for your anti-theistic imbroglio?

You seriously are not interested in a discussion, I can see. If we want an understanding of the BB theory, we know where to go - and your fascination with this idea that others are ignorant is a most illiterate position to assume. Are you the only person so quite unaware that the BB does not answer to the ORIGIN of the universe?

This is why I asked very simple questions - and as I have said, you're not bound to answer them if you do want to do so. To turn round and use your flawed argument as a wager for your hubris of others are "ignorant" is a waste of material, I'm sorry to say. Rather than go round again and again, it has been established that while you are forcing this issue about the BB as the best explanation for the origin of the universe, you came back in answer saying the same BB does not answer that question! Even the theorists themselves would have to admit midway that their assertions are seriously flawed, because the basic premise is this: what is the origin of the matter that were responsible for the BB? They have no answer - so what is this miserly assertion of trying to force the BB as the "best explanation" for the ORIGIN of the UNIVERSE?

If you have no answers to the basic question, it were better to say "I don't know" and hold on to the BB theory - not as the best explanation for th ORIGIN of the universe as if the BB answers the question of the origin of matter itself! To go on accusing others just to demonstrate your hubris won't pass you as a thinker. More than anything, it just indicates to me that it is the same thing I have seen others do - which is: to duck behind the BB as a device for slurring and castigating other people. If that is all this effort is geered towards, we don't need to go any further, because then it would be better appreciated that the real issue here was not even the BB, but the drive to be more comical than coherent.

Dear huxley, when you are arguing a question as deep as the ORIGIN of the universe, the germane question would be this: what is the origin of the matter in the BB? If there's no answer to that basic question, what then is the excuse of using the BB as an explanation for the "Universe ORIGIN"?

I think you already had answered that the BB does not provide answers to the ORIGIN - it just simply does not. Any other argument in protest is okay, but I shall not deny anyone their right to make such protests as best may suit them, even though they won't answer that same question. The BB is not equal to the ORIGIN of the universe.

Well, I get your drift.  I would not address them point by point, but would focus into you main question.  The origin of matter.  This is a good question but is a side issue to BB.


It would also be much appreciated if you would answer my questions about CMB and cosmic expansion. I have asked this repeatedly by each time absolutely no attempt is made to address it.

Now on the question of matter.

Are you familiar with the equation E=mc².   Simply put, this means matter and energy are interchangeable.  If a lump of coal were to travel at the speed of light it would simply become energy.   This realisation was at the heart of the atomic bomb, so there is ample evidence that this is really the case.

So where is all the matter from the universe from?  From the Energy in the Universe.  Now, the law of conservation of energy, also know as the first law of thermodynamics requires that energy comes from somewhere.  This law allows that energy be converted from one type to another as long as the total for a closed system remains fixed.  The total energy for the universe appears to the zero.  

From Stephen Hawkins,s A Brief History of Time "In the case of a universe that ia approximately uniform in space, one can show that the negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive represented by the matter".  So the total energy of the universe is zero.  Specifically, within small measurement errors, the mean energy density of the universe is exactly what it should be for a universe that appeared from initial state of zero energy, within a small quantum uncertainty (Taken from Astrophisical Journal 2003, page 483-86.)

A close balance between positive and negative energy is predicted by the modern extension of the BB, called inflationary BB, according to which the universe underwent a period of rapid, exponential inflation during a tiny fraction of its first second (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997).  The inflationary theory has recently undergone a number of stringent observational tests that would have been sufficient to prove it false.  So far it has successfully passed all the tests (Victor Stenger).

So in summary,  matter and energy are interchangeable.  All the matter came from a state of zero energy.  Zero energy because positive energy is exactly cancelled out by negative energy.

So that is the best scientific explanation for matter.  But this is not BB, I hasten to add.  But you are right in the sense that had the origin of matter not had a plausible explanation it would have been extremely difficult to accept BB as credible.

Now, can you attempt my questions?

1)  How would you explain the observe cosmic expansion?
2)  How would you explain CMB?

Cheers and good luck.  Apologies for being a pain.