Enoch has perfectly described a black hole in The Book of Enoch

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by garbonzo, May 24, 2013.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    What do you think of these claims? Have you researched them and do you find truth to these claims? If not (and if so), why do you think so?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,026
    I googled "book of enoch black hole" and found the following verses in the book of Enoch:

    18:11. And I saw a deep abyss, with columns ⌈⌈of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns⌉⌉ of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth. ​

    Not very black.

    21:3. And there I saw seven stars of the heaven bound together in it, like great mountains and burning with fire.​

    Not very black.

    108:4. And I saw there something like an invisible cloud; for by reason of its depth I could not look over, and I saw a flame of fire blazing brightly, and things like shining mountains circling and sweeping to and fro.​

    Not very black.

    From those verses, I'd say the description does not "perfectly" represent a black hole. Do you have any others?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    I think anyone attempting to shoe horn in "OMG, there's science we only just found out about in this here holy book!" is being staggeringly intellectually dishonest. Why?

    Well it is clear to any even mildly objective evaluation that the holy books of the major Abrahamic religions are not consistent with our understanding of science now. Genesis is not a literal description of how the universe and life developed. Even given some poetic license it is still wrong, plants before the Sun being a prime example.

    The only way jews, christians or muslims can make claims like "It explains fetal development!" or "It predicted time dilation!" is to view passages as extremely vague metaphor. Even allowing for this there's still way way too much wrong in said holy books for any rational person to think they represent some font of scientific knowledge. If the Book of Enoch describes black holes and thus is handed down from the Christian god why is Genesis bullshit? If Enoch was the grandfather of Noah how come the story of Noah is bullshit? It's bullshit because there's never been a complete global flood and it is bullshit because we aren't all descended from the same 8 people within the last 6000 years.

    The "My religious book describes..." claims require the suspension of critical evaluation and also have to ignore the many many more examples where the book is demonstrably wrong in some assertion about science. You want to believe in some all powerful being, knock yourself out, but don't for a nanosecond you have any rational justification.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. IncogNegro Banned Banned

    Messages:
    210
    How long before our bullshit becomes bullshit? Maybe bullshit isn't bullshit but just a better way of explaining the first bullshit in the future.- I feel like I'm from the planet Marklar.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Of course many areas of science have undergone radical restructuring over the centuries but in each case the thing being replaced was previously the model which best explained the evidence and when new evidence came along a new model was developed which best explained the new and old evidence. Once a model is found to be contradicted by new evidence it is no longer viable. In some instances this requires minor modifications and in others a demolishing and rebuilding from the ground up. In all cases what drives the new model development and acts as their testing criteria is reason and evidence. Religion has none of these, it relies on assertions without, and often in the face of, evidence.

    Consider the young Earth creationists claim of the Earth being 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Every aspect of science with anything to do with age and the extreme past provides evidence contradicting the YEC point of view. Similarly with the flood Noah and his family supposedly survived. No geological evidence, which counts against the Flood as we'd expect a geological signature. No biological evidence either, our genetic diversity is in contradiction to the notion we're all descended from only 8 people about 5,000 years ago. I've seen YouTube videos where people try to claim the "In the beginning God made the heavens and the Earth" is in reference to 'time' (beginning), 'space' (heavens) and 'matter' (Earth) and thus alludes to relativity which connects them all. They then ignore how the order of 'Creation' is in contradiction to basic logic such as plants arising before the Sun, as well as geological evidence.

    Yes, science changes its mind from time to time but in each case it is replacing a previously 'best guess' with a new and improved 'best guess'. It's self correcting and demands new evidence be gathered so it can be developed further. Theists often tout this self correction as a bad thing, compared to their "Well my book says X and it doesn't change!", which they view as a good thing. Sticking to a demonstrably false position isn't a good thing, it's the height of stupidity. Better to have as good an understanding as evidence can allow, occasionally requiring a realignment, than just asserting something false and to ignore anything else.

    Today's science is tomorrow's bullshit but it's the best bullshit we have available to us if we care about what is real and true and not what some millennia old document says without evidence or sometimes even sanity.
     
  9. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,100
    It generally helps to post the passage in reference...
     
  10. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    I should have said that this argument is being used by ancient alien theorists (at least where I found out about the argument from). The book of Enoch isn't in most Bibles, I don't think.
     
  11. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    I need this as a signature.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,941
    He's also perfectly described my black asshole.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,806
    I think Mick Jagger came even closer:

    "I see a red door and I want to paint it black" - a reference to a red giant (door) opening into (becoming) a black hole
    "No colors anymore I want them to turn black" - a reference to the absorption of ALL photons, leaving only a black hole

    "I look inside myself and see my heart is black" - a suggestion that there is a black hole lurking in the heart of our Sun
    "I see my red door and it has been painted black" - see above
    "Maybe then I'll fade away and not have to face the facts"
    "It's not easy facing up when your whole world is black" - a very clear reference to the black hole slowly absorbing the Earth

    "No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue" - The Earth will never recover
    "I could not forsee this thing happening to you" - and no one could have predicted it
    "If I look hard enough into the setting sun" - he will see the black hole in the center! (A figure of speech of course)
     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Could you give some credit to some early concepts . Science did not start in the 20th century , Most of what we have are product of the past, what we have done, we have refined them . Even the travel to the moon , my father told me existed in 1918, man flying , you can go back to Leonardo, or even the invention of angels with wing who were able to fly.
     
  15. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
  16. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    This should be in the comparative religion thread.
     
  17. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    It's not to do with religion though....
     
  18. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    It certainly has nothing to do with science.
     
  19. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Check the section you're in.

    Also, I came here for civilized discussion, not genetic fallacies.
     
  20. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    The section you post in has nothing to do with the content you post.

    Genetic fallacies?
     
  21. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    The fact both I and any other honest competent scientist are willing to say "We can be wrong and many current paradigms will be replaced as time progresses" doesn't mean that your position, Motor Daddy, is any more valid. As I highlighted, what matters is reason and evidence. Your view of the universe is based on neither. Relativity is based on both, it is presently the best more accurate explanation of the relevant observed phenomena known. You'll find many theoretical physicists are happy to say that they think Lorentz invariance is violated on ultra short scales, since quantum gravity requires a departure from the 'space-time is nice and smooth' perspective of relativity. However, this doesn't negate the fact the notion of Lorentz invariance is consistent with all current experimental data throughout all of science, much like us now knowing electromagnetic fields are actually swarms of particles doesn't negate the fact Maxwell's electromagnetism is very accurate in describing the electromagnetics of things like microwave ovens, cell phone communications and electricity generators in power station turbines. New models needed to explain some new piece of data do not invalidate the accuracy of previous models to explain previous data. General relativity's superior ability, compared to Newtonian Gravity, to model the data of Gravity Probe B doesn't negate the sufficient accuracy of Newtonian Gravity if you want to put a man on the Moon.

    It may be a surprise to you that someone in the research community is willing to say what you quote me saying but if you ever bothered to actually find out what the community has to say about various things, rather than just making up your own assumptions about what you think we say, you'd not be surprised or think what I said novel. Yes, relativity will be replaced one day but it'll be replaced by something which predicts the same results in the experiments we've already tested relativity with, since relativity gives the correct answer. And the only thing which will justify that replacement of relativity is more reason and evidence. Let us know when you have any.

    No, the Book of Enoch isn't in the Bible but it is a text heavily intertwined with Christianity. My comments stand, whether we're talking about an Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, whatever sects and splinter groups you wish to name) and other religions. My comments are also independent of whether someone is trying to claim the knowledge came from a deity or from some super intelligent race of aliens. The fact is each and every religion's holy book which has comments to make about reality gets something wrong in regards to how the universe really is. If the book is due to some all knowing deity or some group of aliens far in advance of our own civilisation then the errors wouldn't be there. Why would such an author hide cryptic metaphorical descriptions of niche physical phenomena and yet make clear cut incorrect assertions elsewhere? For example, in the Qu'ran some Muslims claim there's an extremely convoluted metaphorical description of time dilation, which scientists only found out about 100 years ago. To view this as being in the book you need to really warp the meaning of certain passages. Yet elsewhere the book describes the sequential development of the human foetus in pretty clear terms, saying that the bones form first and then the flesh grows around the skeleton, which is completely not true. Why hide a truth while putting a mistake in plain sight? What kind of deity who supposedly wants to pass on information via said book do such a thing? Either the deity is a jack ass or the book is the work of men living in a time long before science understood such things and so they just put in their best guess.

    Religious people then have a number of choices in how to view this. Their god is a dick, their god is fallible, the men wrote wrote it were fallible and so introduced errors despite the 'dictation/inspiration' coming from a perfect being or the book is just the work of men and no deity comes into it. Options 2, 3 and 4 require admitting the book can have mistakes in it and so undermines the "We must accept this unquestioningly!" attitude of many overly zealous religious proponents. Option 1 also contradicts the book and zealous view of an all loving god who cares about us, since few religions include the notion of "The deity we're worshipping is an ass who will lie to us and not tell us". This again calls into question the "This book is the perfect and accurate word of [insert deity here]". In all instances the 'perfect authority' of the book is destroyed, it just depends whether it is done by the deity deliberately or accidentally.

    I didn't say otherwise. Science has always existed in some rudimentary form, as it is at its core our understanding of how reality works. Basic engineering, physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics were all known about and used to good effect by the Egyptians and Greeks. Much of their knowledge was lost in Europe during the Dark Ages and it was the Arabic scholars who maintained and further developed it. However, it was only once the Enlightenment occurred that science really took off. Understanding of the human body was severely hindered by religious views that a corpse shouldn't be examined, Leonardo had to illegally obtain corpses in order to make his famous anatomical drawings. Some zealots didn't like scientific research, viewing it as trying to learn the mind or secrets of God.

    Organised religion rarely goes hand in hand with scientific advancement. In both Europe in the Dark Ages and the Arabic world a little later science ground to a halt (and even reversed due to the loss of previous generations' knowledge) because of the crushing grip of religion at those times. America is quite religious now but religion doesn't have the vice-like grip it had in the Dark Ages or still holds in other areas of the world today, America's scientific advancement has not been because of religion but in spite of it. You only have to hear about certain Christian activist groups to see what damage an all powerful religion might do to America or anywhere else. Despite so many claims of "My religious book contains the secrets of science!" no one has ever discovered something new or created a viable physical model by pouring over their book and ignoring reality. Newton was a Bible code nut, he was obsessed by the idea, and yet none of his many pieces of ground breaking science came from the Bible, they were all based on reason and evidence.

    I might have gone off on a bit of a tangent in regards to the religion aspect rather than the space aliens aspect but aside from the reply to arauca all of what I said applies to aliens, as well as deities.
     
  22. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Well these theorists aren't saying the Bible is the infallible word of God or word of the aliens, but rather Enoch had an experience with another highly advanced civilization and decided to write it down in a way that fit in with his religious philosophy and view of the world, to the best his language let him.
     
  23. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    Can anyone have a meaningful discussion on this subject????
     

Share This Page