The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

What response is that? Is it lame because it challenges some religion that doesn't challenge the priesthood of errant science? Why is it lame?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's lame because, in spite of repeated requests, you haven't shown any evidence for anything you've claimed, and demonstrated a basic lack of knowledge.

You simply make claims.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't bother to read the thread. Just came to say anyone who links Hubble with a confirmation of the creation myth from Genesis, is looking way too far away for proof that it's more than myth - I mean, since that's all we have proof of so far. I suppose you could use the lenses trained on the earth to do better, for example, Google Earth, and go find Paradise. Check out the river that connects the Tigris-Euphrates to the land of the Kush, which is a river that defies gravity to climb out of Mesopotamia, and, somehow parts the Red Sea on its way to Somalia.

Discover that lost river, and you will be rich and famous, and I will buy T-shirts for every one posting here (on the negative) that say: "I argued with"...(your name) and then on the back, a target, or a donkey, anything you choose. Oh, of course: I've been saved. I suppose the world would be on its knees by then anyway, observing all kinds of - did you say you were a fundamentalist? - well, all kinds of religious rites that you could specify, because you'd be a jillion times more influential than that religious guy in Contact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A priesthood requires a pope. Who is the Pope of Science? If you can't think of one, I nominate Alexander Pope:

Pretty freakin scientific for an Old World wordsmith, heh?

 

The incarnation of the archangel Rafael

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We're in the religious telescope section.

That would be arc angle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are wrong. I say again. READ what's already been answered to others. I won't spoon feed.

 

Pleased to meet you, Aqua.

I actually said I'm not a fundamentalist. What I'm doing here is pointing out some of the Hubble shots that show a forming star system along with a link to that main Hubble website area. Beyond that I'm explaining how the planets would acrete, cool and contract before the larger mass of the sun would, so the star would not ignite till long after the planet was well on its way to producing life. This is an area for comparative religion, so I've compared that the Bible has the formation of planets and stars in the correct order.

I've also entered in some content about the 5th dimension. In that we really start looking at what my NIV calls sky, but other versions call a vault or a firmament and had this thread grown in a respectful manner, we'd likely be into discussing the geometric and physical nature of black holes and a different perspective on what they mean. This thread does not view any of the scriptures or probe findings from a mainstream perspective, but from an imaginative, out of the box perspective. It's been greeted with a lot of insults, and you can see I fight back. If I walked into the NSF and was immediately tackled by some other scientists and started defending myself, I'd only hope some neutral witnesses were there to tell the cops the other guys assaulted me and I was in the right. I'm just not in the habit of giving my milk money to bullies. Never have. Never will. I shouldn't be ostracized for that.

Thank you for a very civil post.

Hector Decimal

 

:sleep:

Later...

 

Arctan

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Transparent troll is transparent.

Some of us paid attention in science class.

The question is whether you're being deliberately obtuse, pretending to be profoundly ignorant, or whether you're actually that ill informed.

A black body radiates, that's what black body radiation is. The only things which do not radiate anything are objects at 0 Kelvin, which doesn't occur. Even black holes, which classically have zero temperature, radiate due to quantum corrections.

And I can tell you plenty of things an astrophysicist wouldn't know, scientific things, but that's because my area of experience (I'm not so knowledgeable I'd say 'area of expertise') is in a different realm of physics.

Actually I was making the distinction between the quantum field theoretic vacuum and the classical vacuum. There's a significant difference, it's something anyone who studies quantum field theory comes across.

I am not lacking in imagination when it comes to these things, in fact part of my research has been in constructing vacua in field theoretic models. Instead I was pointing out the problems in your assertions.

 

Ditto. I would like him to do that too.
But it is very difficult to get a reply from HectorD.
AlexG tried earlier, and he was told to re-read the thread, where he would find all the answers to his questions.
Yazata has been trying to make him come up with instances of agreement with the Genesis story.
HectorD will not spoon-feed us, apparently.

@HectorD
What you call spoon-feeding is what we call science.
When you make a statement, you need to show that it is true.

This is the Religion section, so you can say what you like about religious matters,
but when you have a thread title which claims scientific evidence for religious beliefs,
you need to come up with the goods.

Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates the Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

 

Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?

You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?

Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.

Then what is you motive for connecting cosmic phenomena to the creation myth?

You speak as though you have if all figured out. Have you ever read a published paper that presents a finding? Do you notice anything different about what you have said, how you have said it, and how all of those experts communicate with their readers?

Which means the topic is intended to center around religion. I fail to see how that can be possible.

Why? For what purpose? What is you ultimate goal? I can imagine a parallel universe, in which there is an earth that unfolds exactly as ours, except every third word in all human speech is "Quetzlcoatl". What possible reason might I have for bringing such an idea as a thread topic?

You mean a Bible? I thought you said you weren't a fundamentalist. If you wanted a technical discussion, why not post it in a technical area? Why not give an abstract that resembles something plausibly scholarly, because you're addressing seasoned experts here. Again, your tacit motive is clouding the allegations you bring, which appear to require an inordinate burden of proof, even if you were suggesting a thesis that is only mildly controversial. Speculation over an issue completely unknown, such as the initial conditions preceding the event that gave birth to our solar system, are beyond the limits of knowledge. All that will come of this is a lot of hubris and hyperbole. So what's the motive for that?

What does that mean? What box confines us? And what liberates us if there is a box? How does imagination solve the vast unknown metrics for this huge system, which we have barely begun to study and understand. It is this abundance of certainty that appears to provide a way out of the box. When has that ever solved any practical problem? Go into a lab, with a soil sample, and tell me how it was formed...by thinking out of the box? Or by tedious, laborious effort, constant recalibration and cross-checking, agonizing about assumptions, messages to everyone you know for help when you hit a brick wall, stuff like that. And that hasn't even touched on the actual process of discovering how to solve the problem.

Well if you wanted a sword fight, there are plenty of gaming sites to accommodate that. I don't understand your remark about NSF, or the ideation that casts them as tough guys. Is this a fantasy? Why would you even say such a thing? And who has ostracized you? You seem to be taking the victim stance, but why?

I still haven't read this thread, I'm not sure I want to. I did re-read your OP and it resembles Creation Science, with a pseudo-science aftertaste.

If I can take you back for a moment to the very first principles you ever learned, you were taught that once a fallacy enters into a theorem, it's shot. Garbage in, garbage out. So any first year college student will be hard pressed to scrub every detail in every assumption made to sanitize his work just to pass muster.

But you have brought a bag full of "unclean" ideas. And if we let you in to the lab, you're going to contaminate all of our cultures. But what you're saying is: I'm the man. I got the chops. Well? Then apply all that muscle to the baggage you’re carrying, because our biohazard detectors are going off all over the place.

What have you got that's clean? I don't see it. I see an attempt to bounce your Creation Science slash Pseudoscience ideas off the wall here, as if to test the limits of the members who participate.

You say you're not a fundamentalist, but your thrust so far is correlating 100% with fundamentalism. So what's up with that? Can you even define Creation Science? Can you explain its history, any court cases you might recall, or any reason the NSF or other scientists here have so much bad blood with that movement? Last I heard, it wasn't the defenseless CS underdog that was being picked on, it was the defenseless school kids whose future education was placed at stake. Was and is. Why would any grown man push the kids to the side and ask for a moment in the spotlight, because he's being bullied?

You see where I'm coming from. Everyone who ever wants to prove anything new has to go through the same drill. So in the first place, you're not being picked on, you're being scrubbed down. You should appreciate that, not to allow false ideas to contaminate your own thinking.

The first blatantly false idea you propound is that you have a method to validate the creation myth. From that point on everything you say is shot. If you had come here to discuss a new artifact uncovered that would shed light into how this myth propagated from point A to point B, you'd have a normal reception. Because that's clean. It starts with the acknowledgement that Genesis is, on its face, principally myth. Granted there are some historical facts, like the building of Nineveh, which dates the earliest possible date for Genesis to that era. So that would be a clean thing to bring, because it helps arrive at the truth. It's unclear what you think truth is or how much you can squeeze it for milk money, but that kind of thinking won't even get you a floor sweeping job at NSF, I wouldn't think.

 

Thank you for your opinion. I doubt if further pointing would satisfy any of these queries.

As for my motive? To show a few Hubble shots that seem to point to all that. I imagine I should have followed in Stephen Hawking's tracks and neatly disguised it all so the scientific review would not be in such an uproar over some new finding. Same thing applies though. It is the math where I would need to go next and I've already seen one person who wants to tear this all apart and torment me over it who says he sucks at math.

Why bother?

It's all been pointed out so a 5th grader could understand it.

 

@Aquaeous
No success for you either. Same kind of answer.
HectorD has answered it all in his previous posts, so there is no need for further explananation.

@HectorD
Every contributor to this thread, apart from your good self,
says you haven't answered any questions at all.
Dish up the goods please!

At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself.
This is the Religion section, so you can say what you like about religious matters,
but when you have a thread title which claims scientific evidence for religious beliefs,
you need to come up with the goods.

Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

 

So a 5th grade education is required to converse with you?

You say perhaps you should have disguised your motive?

You think the scientific review would not be in such an uproar over some new finding? Think again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-folly-of-faith_b_863179.html

This is where the uproar lies. The rest is 5th grade math.

 

I didn't want to read the thread because it hit the bickering stage from the get go. I saw a bunch of experts come in and he lit into them. That says something by itself.

 

That article quotes Pope Benedict XVI, with a statement that gives the faith argument.
I found this very interesting, as I had never heard it before, and it gets right to the crux of the religion science divide.

It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.

Pope Benedict XVI. Easter Sunday Vigil 2011

He does not try to give scientific explanations, or scientific proofs that what he is saying is true. He is arguing from principles of religion, about creation, which from the religious viewpoint is a religious event.
He does deny that the coming of mankind is a random event, with the argument that reason can only come from reason.
This is more a philosophical argument than a scientific one.

People have never warmed to him, not even many Catholics, but he can construct a good argument.

 

By my standards I may not agree they are experts, but let me try something a different way. Your way. Here are 3 places to begin with as a preliminary walkthrough.

Another issue, so this can perhaps identify the conflict. The first few reponses to the OP were like being tackled, not by the guard who didn't seem to have a problem with my being there, but more like a couple "experts" started tackling me. Unfortunately I wore my Bozo outfit that day. It pays the bills. I can get paid to teach other people as a clown. They call that stand up comedy.

I thought about starting a new thread, but the resolve is essentially the science of origins from a comparison of religions. Atheism entered immediately, logic would say atheists here already want to be recognized as a religion. Cool! Let's, for now, leave religion out of it, and discuss physics from a neutral perspective, on second thought, from the atheistic perspective. God doesn't matter. Her are our first building blocks, the precursor environment is, we get along.

Classic mechanics: Everything to begin with. we'll build off of f = ma.

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


Solid Mechanics

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

Geological accretion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_(geology)

There are the first 3 references.

Let's learn about why scientifically, then when the time is right, we'll review the whole OP. I promise to eventually go above and beyond what is necessary, but before I can introduce "The Phone Book" (Thorne and Wheeler) these other areas, we need to agree on our fundamental understandings. Experts entered right in from the get go. Let's compare notes, derivatives, standard and non-standard deviations.

Fair?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are ever willing to go off at a tangent.
Please. Support your main argument.

Again.
Could you indulge us by giving just three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.