Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 68 of 231 (615993)
05-18-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Taz
05-18-2011 7:42 PM


If your point is that the terminology can be confusing when first encountered, even misleading, I think many would grant that point.
But if you want to change what has become accepted and fairly standard terminology within astrophysics then, well, good luck with that.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 7:42 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 8:10 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 70 of 231 (616006)
05-18-2011 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
05-18-2011 8:10 PM


Oh, okay. Well, since I see neither a significant point nor a circular argument I'll just bow out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 05-18-2011 8:10 PM Taz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 231 (616056)
05-19-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taz
05-19-2011 12:10 AM


This is the best impersonation of creationist style arguing I've seen in a while.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taz, posted 05-19-2011 12:10 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 05-19-2011 10:46 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 127 of 231 (616778)
05-24-2011 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Theodoric
05-24-2011 11:01 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Theodoric writes:
Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
Confusion between effect and affect is effecting clarity and having an affect on communication.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 12:21 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 138 of 231 (720241)
02-21-2014 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Eliyahu
02-21-2014 7:30 AM


Re: Mythology...
Is there any point in replying to you, or is this discussion going to end the same way as The fossile record conclusively disproves evolution where you just declare your position and walk away?
Eliyahu writes:
With the big-bang theory, science made an about-face, and brought itself in line with what the Bible claims for already 3300 years: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
Theory changed because of evidence discovered by Hubble of an expanding rather than static universe. It didn't change to become more in line with the Bible, and in fact the change agreed hardly at all with the Bible. Science thinks the universe is 13.7 billion years old, the Bible around 6000. Science thinks the earth is 4.56 billions years old, the Bible around 6000. Science thinks that time might be an illusion and that the very question, "When did things begin?" makes no sense.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 7:30 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 8:45 AM Percy has replied
 Message 153 by Eliyahu, posted 02-22-2014 2:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 148 of 231 (720267)
02-21-2014 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Eliyahu
02-21-2014 8:45 AM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
From an eternal universe to one with a beginning, like the Bible says, that is an enormous change.
But science didn't stop in 1930. Current speculations within science include a "before" the Big Bang and a possibly eternally expanding/contracting universe. And as I already mentioned, time is possibly an illusion, rendering moot questions regarding a "beginning."
Time is relative. More than half a century after Einstein that should be common knowledge. So there is no problem to squeeze 15 billion years into six days.
But the Bible has the heavens and earth being created simultaneously ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."), while science has them created billions of years apart.
As we continue to follow the evidence science will continue to change. If you want to interpret some changes as being more consistent with the Bible that's your business. It has nothing to do with science.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 8:45 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 158 of 231 (720398)
02-22-2014 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Eliyahu
02-22-2014 2:19 PM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
If we start talking like that, I know another one: The whole universe is an illusion.
But science is talking like that. You claimed that science is becoming more in line with the Bible, but science can't really say whether the universe is eternal. We know there was a beginning for the current expansion of the universe, but whether that was the ultimate beginning is unknown. And as I said before, time is not part of the math describing our universe, and science believes it possible that time is just an illusion, though, as Eiinstein said, a very persistent one.
And even Hubble's original discovery of the expanding universe didn't align with the Bible's "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...", because while it could be argued that universe *was* created at the beginning, it wasn't until millions of years later that there were any stars (the heavens), and not until billions of years later that the earth was formed.
If within your own mind you'd like to believe that science is coming more and more into line with the Bible then that's your business, but here in the real world science is becoming better and better aligned with the evidence from reality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Eliyahu, posted 02-22-2014 2:19 PM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Eliyahu, posted 02-23-2014 1:49 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 162 of 231 (720414)
02-23-2014 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Eliyahu
02-23-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Mythology...
Hi Eliyahu,
I'm describing actual views within science while you're just making things up as you go along. You seem self-satisfied with your "explanations", but to anyone familiar with science they're transparently superficial and wrong.
And you continue to ignore rebuttals. For example, it was explained in detail why "time is relative" is not an answer, and yet here you are many posts later just declaring "time is relative" as if that explained anything. There is no manner in which "time is relative" is a meaningful answer. We can look back to almost the beginning of the universe right now (cosmic background radiation), so by your argument today and the period near the Big Bang are occurring at the same time. But we know the light from back then took billions of years to get here and that the period near the Big Bang is not occurring right now. And so do you, you just choose to play dumb.
The facts are that the Big Bang was 13.7 billion years ago, the first stars (the heavens) formed around 13.5 billion years ago, and the earth formed around 4.56 billion years ago. Genesis declares they were all created simultaneously: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Not much of an agreement there.
Hubble's discovery of an expanding universe is more in line with the Bible only in that it says this universe had a beginning. That's about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Eliyahu, posted 02-23-2014 1:49 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Eliyahu, posted 02-23-2014 6:44 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 165 of 231 (720425)
02-23-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Eliyahu
02-23-2014 6:44 AM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
Ah, when you say something it is science, and when I say something it is not science.
No, that is incorrect. You seem to be having big problems understanding plain English.
I said that I described actual views within science and that you're just making things up. This is true because the things I described are views that scientists actually have and that appear in actual scientific journals, while the things you described appear nowhere but in your own mind. Is that clear enough this time, or should I translate it into the Dutch for you?
It is of course totally ridiculous to think that if somebody has a certain viewpoint, that after you tried to rebut that viewpoint, the other is no longer allowed to hold that viewpoint.
You are again having problems with simple English. The problem is that you're ignoring the rebuttals. You're free to hold whatever opinions you like, but it's not a discussion if you ignore the rebuttals and just continue asserting your beliefs.
You take yourself way to seriously...
Says the person operating under the mistaken belief that he understands both English and relativity.
Time on earth was not always the same, the expanding universe slows down time, and in other places in the universe time flows with totally different speeds.
And this is what makes it evident that you don't understand relativity. Time flows at the same rate in all inertial reference frames. We may observe time flowing more slowly in other inertial reference frames that are in motion or are accelerating with respect to our own, but within those other reference frames time flows at the same rate as within our own.
So you cannot bluntly say: "the big bang was 13.7 years ago".
You *really* don't understand relativity. Even if you were 50 billion light years from here, your observations would still measure the Big Bang at 13.7 billion years ago.
Hubble's discovery of an expanding universe is more in line with the Bible only in that it says this universe had a beginning. That's about it.
And that is already an enormous stap toward the Bible.
You're welcome to believe that. As I explained before, science does not believe the heavens and earth were both created in the beginning, and there is no certainty within science that the beginning of this universe was the beginning of existence. There is even speculation that there may be many universes - certainly the laws of physics permit it, and it falls naturally out of some forms of string theory.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify sentence about time flow in other inertial reference frames.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Eliyahu, posted 02-23-2014 6:44 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2014 2:07 AM Percy has replied
 Message 170 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 7:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 169 of 231 (720460)
02-24-2014 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by NoNukes
02-24-2014 2:07 AM


Re: Mythology...
I could have phrased it better, but I included accelerating reference frames, which are the same as gravity wells. As you say, there's no mystery. Observers at opposite ends of a gravity well can make measurements that make clear whose time is flowing slower. An observer in an accelerating reference frame or in a gravity well would know that the Big Bang and the formation of the earth were not simultaneous events. As it happens, we live at the bottom of a gravity well and did not have any trouble figuring this out. Making the gravity well "extreme" doesn't change this.
Elihayu also hasn't seemed to have considered that if he were correct that the Big Bang and the formation of the earth were simultaneous, then everything that ever happened, including the cup of coffee he just finished, were also simultaneous with those events. Which obviously makes no sense. Well, obvious to us.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2014 2:07 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 7:32 AM Percy has replied
 Message 181 by NoNukes, posted 02-24-2014 9:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 175 of 231 (720472)
02-24-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Eliyahu
02-24-2014 7:30 AM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
What is it that I make up according to you?
Most of what you say is made up. How about this from your Message 158:
Eliyahu in Message 158 writes:
Sure. And science also says that the universe doesn't exist.
...
The whole material world is a very persistant illusion.
Only the spiritual world exists.
...
What you experience as "reality", the physical world, that just doesn't exist.
It is all mental.
This is all just you making stuff up, or maybe they're your religious beliefs. It isn't anything science believes to be true.
You are again having problems with simple English. The problem is that you're ignoring the rebuttals.
And so do you guys.
"Oh, yeah? Well, so are you!" is your rebuttal to an accurate observation? Could you at least be original, or even accurate? Is it too much to ask?
Oh oh, and then you guys think that you are the sophisticated well educated and scientific ones, debating the religious hillbillies who think the earth is flat.
I'm apparently debating a religious hillbilly who thinks the Big Bang and the formation of the Earth were simultaneous events simply because his religious book tells him so. You can pretty much trust that people here understand relativity, you don't have to describe it for us.
What you haven't described, and can't since it isn't possible, is the manner in which the Big Bang and the Earth's formation were simultaneous events. It's impossible because the quarks making up the Earth were also in the Big Bang, and those quarks couldn't be in two different places at once. Or are you going to invoke quantum mechanics now?
There are litterally BILLIONS of places in the universe where time is so much slowed down, that a clock, if we would place one there, would tick away only six days in fifteen billion earth years. So if a clock were placed there after the big bang, it would say that only six days have passed by there since then.
I agree that in our universe there must be such a place. And there must be a place where the clock ticked 7 days. And another place where it ticked 8 days. And another where it ticked a single day. So what. What has any of this to do with simultaneity?
Let's say that the term "in the beginning" is not one exact point in time.
We can say that, but then this is just you making things up again.
If "in the beginning" is not "one exact point in time," then might it span, oh, I don't know, maybe 9.14 billion years, roughly the amount of time separating the Big Bang from the formation of the Earth?
Keep in mind the difference between science and speculation.
I've been describing both established science and scientific speculation, which hints at future directions in science, and clearly science is *not* coming more and more into line with the Bible. You're correct that science came into better agreement with the Bible about there being a beginning, but it did so out of evidence, and what we've learned and the evidence gathered since the 1930's has not brought science into any closer alignment with the Bible. In fact, most of what we've learned has made science less and less aligned with the Bible.
Even you understand this:
We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.
―Hannes Alfven
A good example of the above is the evolution theory.
Yet evolution is an accepted scientific theory that has experienced considerable development since the 1930's and is one of the key ways in which science has become less and less aligned with the Bible. Your argument that the Bible and science are coming into better and better alignment is ludicrous on its surface. Were there any truth to it there wouldn't even be a creation/evolution debate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 7:30 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 11:21 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 177 of 231 (720474)
02-24-2014 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Eliyahu
02-24-2014 7:44 AM


Re: Time is relative
Eliyahu writes:
You consider that to be an explanation. But I find it to be full of made up science.
Please tell me what part of the science is not correct.
You just did this to me, now you're doing it to NoNukes. After someone makes a summary statement, what perverse part of your nature makes you request it all be presented to you again? Is your memory that short? Are you that confused?
I'm not saying the earth didn't exist on day three, I'm saying that until the end of day six Genesis counts with cosmic standard time.
Cosmic standard time? You mean like the scientific version of cosmic standard time? The one where the Big Bang happened at time 0 and the Earth formed at time 9.14 billion years?
I think I see one way that you're reasoning is leading you astray. This is from your Message 155:
Eliyahu in Message 155 writes:
In a black hole it will look as if the cosmic clock ticks with an enormously high frequency,...
Light falling into the gravity well of a black hole will experience the same slowing as everything else. An observer will not see "an enormously high frequency."
But here is what a Jewish commentator wrote about the creation of the world:
"The first act of creation made something that was so thin that it had no substance. It was the only act of creation that ever happened, and compressed in that point in space was the whole universe just after its creation."
Sounds like the big bang to me.
I can find this quote nowhere on the net - who said it?
Anyway, "in that point in space was the whole universe" does sound like the Big Bang, "it had no substance" not so much.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 7:44 AM Eliyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Theodoric, posted 02-24-2014 9:37 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 12:05 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 178 of 231 (720476)
02-24-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Eliyahu
02-24-2014 7:32 AM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
Where do I say that the big bang and the creation of the earth were simultaneous events??
The Bible says that creation of the heavens and the Earth were simultaneous events:
The King James Bible writes:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
In another message you equivocated and said that "in the beginning" might not be a specific point in time, but in that case the first day spans 9.14 billion years. Grass was created on the third day, which means the next two days span about 4.5 billion years. Your days of Genesis seem to vary in length.
So, keeping in mind that light falling into a gravity well is slowed along with everything else, tell us again how your observations from the bottom of a gravity well correspond with Genesis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 7:32 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 194 of 231 (720582)
02-25-2014 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Eliyahu
02-24-2014 11:21 PM


Re: Mythology...
Eliyahu writes:
And you don't even know the the universe doesn't exist?? I mean; it is not like that is a recent discovery or something, science discovered it almost a hundred years ago, and you don't know about it?
Science doesn't believe the universe does not exist, but if it did then how could you argue that science is coming more into agreement with the Bible when the Bible believes the universe does exist?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Eliyahu, posted 02-24-2014 11:21 PM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22389
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 197 of 231 (720587)
02-25-2014 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Eliyahu
02-25-2014 12:05 AM


Re: Time is relative
Eliyahu writes:
Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure. It could be one, or the other. Or both of 'm. Or none of 'm.
Or both of 'm and something more. Or one of 'm and something more. Or the other one of 'm, and something more. Or none of 'm and something more. Or ... Well, the possibliities are endless. All I can say about it is: "Who am I to judge?"
Let me repeat the question. After someone makes a summary statement, what perverse part of your nature makes you request it all be presented to you again?
Cosmic standard time? You mean like the scientific version of cosmic standard time? The one where the Big Bang happened at time 0 and the Earth formed at time 9.14 billion years?
That would be earth time.
That would be everyone's time. We know better than to think that everything we see through our telescopes is all happening at the same time. Simultaneity isn't governed by when the light arrives at your eyes. Even if we were looking at the Big Bang and Earth from somewhere else in the universe we'd still just take distance, relative speed and acceleration into account, just as we already do from here. We'd still get the same answer for the time of Earth's formation after the Big Bang.
These adjustments to relative speed and distance and expansion of the universe are how we know, for example, when distant supernova actually happened. We know the supernova observed by Kepler in 1604 actually occurred about 20,000 years before because it is about 20,000 light years away. For very distant objects we have to take red-shift, distance and expansion of the universe into account to know how far back in time we're peering. That light from both the 1604 supernova and from galaxies 12 billion light years away arrive at our telescopes at the same time does not fool us into thinking we're watching simultaneous events.
Light falling into the gravity well of a black hole will experience the same slowing as everything else. An observer will not see "an enormously high frequency."
The enormous gravity will slow down time, not everything else.
Your unfamiliarity with relativity is again very evident. A gravity well will slow time *and* motion, including the motion of light. It's obvious when you think about it. Let's say you're observing a clock in a strong gravity well. You can tell that time is flowing more slowly because the hands of the clock are moving more slowly. Motion is how we measure time, so of course the slowing of time must also mean the slowing of motion. Including light's motion.
This is why an observer at the bottom of a strong gravity well will not observe the outside universe to be in frenetic motion, because the arrival of light from the outside is also slowed.
So, keeping in mind that light falling into a gravity well is slowed along with everything else, tell us again how your observations from the bottom of a gravity well correspond with Genesis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Eliyahu, posted 02-25-2014 12:05 AM Eliyahu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024