The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

No, its completely valid to call your post nonsense because -

1. Its an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence.
2. You gave no evidence whatsoever.
3. The burden of proof was on you and you didn't shoulder it, hence your statement deserves no respect until it can be substantiated.

Welcome to sciforums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nebulae are by definition systemically constrained to being the aftermath of a star - higher elemets and other leftovers from the first generation star can only arise through the supernova of the star - a mere gas cloud as you suggest would never have those things unless the cloud itself was an remnant of the said supernova.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then wait for a resolution before jumping to conclusions.

Are you a cosmologist or astrologist?

Substantiate please?

Except that light is not the only qualifier for life. Light may not even be needed, a slowing reacting planet with enough size and chemicals might spawn life with a star at all.

Even if it were correct for that system, you cannot call the chronology correct unless you have proof that this was the case for earth too.

Thats like an ant seeing a McD logo and saying - the signs in the sky have confirmed that M-man is the supreme being. All hail his bright red nose!
His friend can, at this point, easily say - what of all those other signs? How about all the problems inherent in your narrow, infantile and incredulous belief that M-man is actually the One based on little more than cherrypicking? How much vanity must you have to think that M-man, if he is indeed the One, cares about you - an insignificant ant in the middle of this massive city.

Future prediction is no more indicative of time travel than are past memories.

No, the unseen you mention would only go on for the time it is observed, it would only be completely continous, such that no amount of slowing would reveal any frames.

About those ants - they arent the only ones having that discussion -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If there is a God, a bronze age myth/story book tells us about him about as much as Thor[the movie] tells us about astrobiology. If you KNOW that that is true, please do convince me - make some supportive claims, give evidence for them and put them together to make a case for the biblical God.

And oh yes, you need this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation

 

I would have to go with you here. Its just that its been a while since our last fundamentalist/creationist. The only fish in the barrel we have are armchair pseudoscientists, and they [like Mister/Reiku] have mostly become better and more competent or they refrain from posting on those topics.

So you might get a few Ad Homs, don't mind 'em. But your ideas, may God help them.

 

Why? We can theorize quite realistically there is an element 138, even though the current theoreticals only number to 118 without first having proof that 117 can be stablized. We theorize singularities exist, even though we have no proof that a black hole is really just that. We call that stuff science. We can even theorize various ways the universe was originated and those qualify as science with no proof there ever was a big bang. In fact we can find many books inspired about that subject that has no proof, but to make a statement that may have easily have been said "God inspired Moses, an historically recorded member of the Hebrew race, by communicating to him through the 5th dimension..." is verbotten? Sounds like a human rights violation to me.

In fact, if you put "flame speaker" in a search, you'll find we can make sound come out of a flame by inserting an electrode inside it to ionize the outer gradient areas of the flame. I first saw that in Electronics Illustrated when I was about 12.

No. I don't need proof God exists to make such a statement. Neither do I need any more proof that Moses existed than we do that Aristotle or Caiphas existed.

I do appreciate your adherence to the topic, though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thanx, SpiderGoat.

It may be needed to remind others that Hector Decimal is not the topic. Bob Dole isn't the topic either. The topic involves those Hubble shots that depict light and screting planets void of an ignited star. Some of those shots, although mesmerizingly beautiful, are not protoplyds or proplyds, rather already igintied stars that are masked to reveal planets. Thos demonstrate the presence of other "earth's" potentially.

"...and I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed away..." sounds like someone was envisioning space travel. Maybe there are self-destructive trolls out there who don't want to see the rest of us make it that far...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nonsense!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1. Failed by comparison and by identification as being based upon mere semantics.

( Gen. 1:3-16 are not extraordinary claims, they are based on someone's ancient vision, no different that Einstein's vision of relativity and light being bent by gravity. Einstein's vision was evidenced in 1919. Gen. has only recently been evidenced by the provided Hubble shots (and not the first one used to introduce the page.))

2. Failed. (See 1. Try rereading the whole thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

3. Nonsense. Failed. (See 1. and I really recommend rereading the thread...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)


Pleased to meet you.

 

Prove that. I've never seen anything that takes this beyond an educated guess. There are evidences that TEND to prove this is ONE system of creation.

 

Penguin rech,

I stopped responding to your posts when they became an insult to this forums intelligence and TEND to point to trolling.

If you want some of those ansered, defined then READ the answer to Yanazat's tirade. They TEND to prove, reasonably exhaustively, my point in all this is valid. I'm not going to jump on a merry-go-round.

 

Not when they post like that they shouldn't.

 

Kindly stay on topic...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What level of life?

The Bible says:
11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.￾ And it was so.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


So, before the sun was even lit, the earth had trees growing on it with fruit.
Do you really believe this to be an accurate description of the genesis of life on earth?

 

I went over all that in response to a tirade by Yazata (sp?).

Yes. It is possible life, as in trees and primates, could develop on a planet illuminated by residual, primordial photons, but radioactivity could also illuminate and produce many strange mutations from basic DNA and microbes "teeming" together.

 

Hector wrote:

If I ever had my doubts, which I have at times, the Hubble and other space stationed telescopes have confirmed my belief in that book as the written word of God.​

I replied:

That's probably true for you, autobiographically.​

It may well be autobiographically true that you reaffirmed your own belief that the bible is the written word of God.

I wrote:

That's probably true for you, autobiographically.
But it sounds like a tremendous non-sequitur to me. How does one get from a fanciful layman's interpretation of some Hubble photographs to confidence that the Bible is "the written word of God"?​

Hector responds:

'Non-sequitur' is Latin for 'doesn't follow'. It refers to the logical fallacy that occurs when one spins out a conclusion to an argument that doesn't follow from the argument's premises. My question is, how does your conclusion that the Bible is the written word of God follow from your personal interpretation of some Hubble photographs?

About the only connection that I can see is that you think that you can interpret the Hubble photographs in such a way that you think that they are consistent with the seeming chronological difficulty in Genesis that has the Earth forming and life already on it before the Sun was lit.

I wrote:

Traditional Buddhist cosmology speaks of countless world-systems. I don't see that idea in the Hebrew creation mythology. Having said that, I don't interpret that as evidence that Buddhist tradition derives from an omniscient source. I think that it's more likely to just be a lucky ancient guess.​

I never mentioned string theory. The point is that traditional Buddhist cosmology claims that there are multiple world systems out there. And science has indeed discovered that the stars in the sky are other suns and they many of them indeed have planets orbiting them. So, arguing analogously to what you said in your first post in this thread, does the consistency between this particular aspect of ancient Buddhist cosmology and modern astronomy imply that Buddhism must derive from an omniscient source?

But why should those kinds of fortuitous congruities between ancient mythic cosmologies be rejected in the Buddhst case but embraced as evidence of divine authorship in the Hebrew case?

 

Here are some comments on the Genesis cosmology.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.​

Along with the "heavens" (it isn't clear what that means), the Earth seems to have been the very first thing created. The Earth has existed for as long as anything else in the universe.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.​

That looks like a reference to earlier Mesopotamean cosmological myth, in which "waters" represented primordial chaos. Water has no shape or form of its own and takes the shape of whatever container it's in. It also had the annoying tendency to erode the Mesopotameans' mud-brick structures back into formlessness. Floods were the great danger in Mesopotamia and the primary source of their ancient disasters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light, and there was light.

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light day,￾ and the darkness he called night. And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.​

We seem to have not only light, but day and night, before the Sun, Moon or stars were lit.

6 And God said, Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault sky.￾ And there was evening, and there was morning the second day.​

Apparently the ancient Hebrews imagined the sky to be a giant dome over creation (the Earth), with "waters" (chaos) above and below.￾

9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land,￾ and the gathered waters he called seas.￾ And God saw that it was good.​

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.

11 Then God said, Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.￾ And it was so.​

So the very first life to appear on Earth, even before the Sun was lit, were seed-bearing and fruit-producing plants and trees. This life appeared on land and not in the oceans.

12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,

15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth. And it was so.

16 God made two great light the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.​

Only at this point do the Sun and Moon appear. (They seem to be imagined as if they were lights up on the sky-dome.) And only now do all the rest of the stars simultaneously appear. (They seem to have been imagined as little lights too.)

17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,

18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.

19 And there was evening, and there was morning the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.￾​

Only now does sea-life appear. Apparently the appearance of sea-life is simultaneous with the appearance of birds, which seem to be the first land-animals.

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.

23 And there was evening, and there was morning the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.￾ And it was so.​

The first land-animals, apart from birds, that appear seem to include "the livestock", presumably meaning mammals.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.￾

27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.​

It's a nice story and it probably tells us a lot about how the ancient Hebrews imagined their world. But it seems kind of foolish to try to read it as if it was a scientifically accurate account of how the universe, the Earth and life came to be.

I'm not sure how literally even the ancient Hebrews took a story like this. I'd guess that many of them recognized that there was a great deal of 'poetic license' there.

 

I can imagine very primitive life not requiring much light, or even growing in darkness, but trees with fruit?
That's hard to swallow.
How much light do you think these primordial photons would supply to the earth?
Would the light be as strong as moonlight do you think?

 

It's a matter of proximity. Close to the forming star, amid the scattering of the heavier elemental fragments in its contracting, primordial essence, the light would be possibly more intense than sunlight. It would be like a nova in reverse, meaning briliant multi-spectral luminance projected outward, as the Hubble sees from this distance, only in contraction-acretion phase. The difference is instead of being the remains of a body chiefly composed of heavy hydrogen isotope, it would contain pretty much all the heavier elements.

(I really need to experiment with this particular forum's functions to upload pics into a thread. at my jootbox forum I upload from my machine and Voila! they are in the thread as big as we like...

To do this would mean I can sketch up some illustrations or even add some older ones and show what I mean.)

Everything for life is there. This means that there just might be life on large enough asteroids in sufficiently luminous nebulae.

 

If there were parts of the universe in which light like daylight were falling upon the planets, while the Sun was yet dim, wouldn't it be quite easy to observe those planets.

We observed the first planet directly, without inference, in 2005
see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4501323.stm

Without a blazing sun, surely planets lit as brightly as daylight by primordial photons, circling around their as-yet unlit suns, would be commonplace observations.

Why are they as yet undiscovered?

There are other things that don't make sense, but I'll just ask this question for the moment.

 

"We only cover a small section of the sky and it's a big ass sky." (The movie Armageddon)

We are just beginning after milleniums of stargazing to refine our tools and learn how to use them. Give it some more time and Toto will drag open the curtain.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!