The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

I just did.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you need more, then wait till there are some posts discussing the understanding of the basics to post back to the thread. If you want to ask a question, it should begin with Leonardo DaVinci, a father of advanced 3D geometry, the thumbnail sketch and the scientific perspective that inspired relativity, plus Isaac Newton who fathered classic mechanics : f = ma.

If you can't show me you can't imaginatively discuss f = ma, then how can I walk you through geological accretion and later astrophysical accretion? If you want me to reference others having this same conclusion from these Hubble shots, I'm sure they are out there. Somewhere in this we will examine where force = infinity, mass approaches 0 and acceleration approaches infinity, then ends up divided from a floor of 0 to a ceiling of infinity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as I've seen, the only serious reference to another religion in this thread was my remark about Buddhist cosmology's countless numbers of world-systems. The Genesis account is entirely concerned with this planet and seems to assume that the Earth is unique. The closest thing to a reference in Genesis to different astronomical bodies is its treatment of the Sun, Moon and stars as lights up on the firmament. Given modern astronomy's view that the stars are distant suns and that many of them have planets orbiting them, the ancient Buddhist view may be a little closer to modern understanding (in that particular respect).

Obviously that doesn't constitute evidence that any of the rest of Buddhist belief is correct. Most likely it's just a lucky ancient guess. My point is simply that hunting around in hopes of finding the occasional loose analogy between some detail of one's chosen mythical cosmology and modern scientific understanding doesn't really produce evidence of very much.

And "that correct sequence" is the Genesis sequence, right? Non-Christian religions and atheistic scientists have rearranged that true sequence to suit their own evil anti-Biblical agendas?

This does clarify one thing. It suggests that you aren't really trying to argue that the Genesis account is consistent with scientific chronology. (That would probably be an impossible task.) Instead, it sounds like you are making the much stronger claim that much of modern scientific chronology is simply bullshit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This appears to be Hec's standard line of bullshit. You ask him, he says he answered, and leaves everbody saying 'no you didn't'.

This is just a baiter troll.

Not even up to the standards of a master baiter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. You didn't. You avoided the question.
And I'm not sitting here deciphering some half-cocked misinterpretation of science
as re-invented by yourself, before you get to the point.

Yet again.
Please give us three examples of how the Hubble corroborates Biblical Chronology.
And follow this with evidence, giving links where appropriate.

It's a simple question, I think.

 

I'm certain there is plenty of implied content nested in our proliferous vocabularies. By that, we use words that create bifurcate and mutiplexed discussions with only a word or two. For instance "most" spawns the failing argument. What constitutes "most.?"

I think the Bible's is correct. I've only linked to a couple examples of proplyds to keep it a bit easier to follow. To discuss the first example, not really intended for this, but notice that the two brightest areas, having to be dodged by the Hubble to hide that light, are likely, being larger, made of the same elements and closer to the same birth era, if I read that properly that the shot is of a gas giant and other earthy planets. The outer gas giant is too luminous to have been formed prior to the smaller bodies, referenced by the fact they don't show up till the gas giant and sun are dodged.

 

Yes, nonetheless a band with an accretion window and sufficient mass for life, will likely opt for that window 20% of the time, which are reasonably favorable odds. To use our own advanced star system into example, most everything that drew together into a contractring disk would still have a vast number of accreted primordial material would compact the center and it would begin to bulge, then from the center of the bulge the plasma jets begin. From what can be seen of the primordial material it will follow a toroid trajectory.

 

Good point.
Gravity must have been one of the initial parameters set up by God before the Universe was created. Otherwise suns would not have formed from clouds of nebular gas.

To me, this is yet another instance of how the Biblical account is a creation myth rather than a Chronology. Seas would not be mixed with land at this stage, because water would have found its own level under the influence of gravity. Sea and land would already be separate.

HectorD will no doubt say that he has already explained this apparent anomaly, and that we should look to his previous posts to find the answers we crave.

 

Logic would say that, by definition, atheism is a lack of religious belief.

Calling atheism a religion is—what? …“ Assume A≠B...” What is the name for that kind of statement? Before we can proceed into a freshman course in Statics and Dynamics, it would appear that we would need to complete the foundations for junior high Geometry...how about: “A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true. ”

But your premises are false:
Atheists are not religious, therefore...FAIL.

(A) Your thesis drags religion in, and you opened in a forum on Religion. So no.

(B) There is no such thing as an atheist perspective on Physics, as this implies there is a theist-validated version of Physics. That requires us to open the Pandora's Box of pseudoscience, which has been eternally cast into hell where it shall remain until the God of your forefathers hands you the keys to the kingdom to go unlock it.

Ah. God matters in opening the thread, in declaring that telescope imagery confirms the fundamentalist (i.e., Genesis is not a myth) "perspective". But, in attempting to prosecute a deductive continuity to reasoning, we are allowed to pretend that the proposition is not requisite to the fundamental premise for this discussion. This is what we mean by Pseudoscience. It represents itself as valid, simply by covertly discarding essential truths along the way. So God will matter even as you pretend it is not the foregone conclusion you are attempting to “prove”.

Cut to the chase: We understand accretion. Specifically, it has nothing to do with Genesis because the Caananites had no idea what accretion was. Thus they invented God to explain phenomena for which they had no science. This is why your thread is so utterly bogus. You are in denial of this fundamental principle around which the world of science revolves.

We don't dispute accretion. What we dispute is your tactics and methods, including the presupposition that this validates a myth. We dispute your selective form of reasoning that prejudices the discussion towards overt Pseudoscience. We abhor the anti-Science war waged by Creation Scientists to lord over the impressionable minds of their innocent victims, and to undermine the just, honest and morally necessary doctrines of Scientific truth. We will not yield to this abuse no matter how innocuous the "disguise" you admitted to.

Promise, promises. In God We Trust, all others pay cash. So far you are in default, and your dishonesty contaminates this attempt to steer an argument toward anything more than a manipulated result.

If that were the Bible Hubble confirms, then this would not be pseudoscience. That is why you are deferring the question of God.

"non standard deviations" appears to be the language of pseudoscience. As long as you continue to insist on a proprietary language, all dialogue with you is doomed. Do you even know what standard deviation means, what the underlying philosophy is behind that field of mathematics? If you ascribe to Creation Science, then all discussion of probability theory is equally doomed, since fundamentalism requires us to replace all known stochastic processes with God, which is the most egregious violation of Gravitation imaginable, and renders it an invalid reference for you to cite. So first you must admit that Nature is intrinsically random, and declare that you are not espousing a deterministic pretense. Otherwise you are asking is to pretend that a crank rant is worthy of scientific review.

Yeah, what I said is fair. Let's go with what I said.

 

Correct? How can a myth be correct? FAIL.
It is a well established fact that Genesis is a myth.
Prove Genesis is not a myth.

 

I must have missed that or I'd have responded to it. Good point. Let me throw this all a curve. Try... this all happened after gravity made God. That is what I believe, so we could say that is my theist perspective.

 

Now we really are off in the weeds, aren't we.

 

It was mentioned about some illogical sequence of accretion before gravity being made by God. I responded with the logical correction that gravity preceded God, so "No," to the other premise.

 

Off in the weeds... not such a bad place to get laid...

 

Pseudoscience makes anything logical.