Testing a Religious theory:

S

siphra

Registered Senior Member
So I have a theory I want to test, and it is this essential concept.

I am very familiar with science, I am a chemical engineer, my father in law is a physics PHD, and my wife studied both computer science and physics in college.

I am fairly familiar with Judeo-Christian religions.

And I have a theory; I would be honored if everyone here would participate in it.

I would like you to try to explain creation, using the sciences, to a world of ignorant people who don't even have a written language.

Being that this is forums what I would like you to do is :

1) Outline the key details you would explain.
2) Give the brief of this in simplest terms possible.

Now what is my theory: My theory is that if you take what we know from science about the creation of the universe and life here on earth, you will get a story that is very similar to that of the Hebrew Qblh/torah.

Note: You will not get 'YEC' or even most versions of creationism; which is at it's heart flawed because most creationism comes from only translation of the Bible and/or Torah and ignores the Qblh portions which are expansions of the original concepts.

So I would like to see what people, who have some understanding of science, can come up with.

Thank you to those who participate.
 
Everything started from a tiny fireball that expanded into the stars. Material from those stars formed planets like this one and on that planet a tiny life form grew. It's brothers and sisters were a little bit different from it, and they traveled all over the world and became the animals and plants. Some of those animals were apes, and humans are brothers of the apes.
 
would like you to try to explain creation, using the sciences, to a world of ignorant people who don't even have a written language.
Click to expand...

First of all you'd need to educate those people so they can read and write and do simple math which will take some time to do. You will need to gain their trust by telling them the truth about everything you teach them. That will take awhile and after that is done see if they ask questions about how everything started.
 
siphra said:
So I have a theory I want to test, and it is this essential concept.

I am very familiar with science, I am a chemical engineer, my father in law is a physics PHD, and my wife studied both computer science and physics in college.

I am fairly familiar with Judeo-Christian religions.

And I have a theory; I would be honored if everyone here would participate in it.

I would like you to try to explain creation, using the sciences, to a world of ignorant people who don't even have a written language.

Being that this is forums what I would like you to do is :

1) Outline the key details you would explain.
2) Give the brief of this in simplest terms possible.

Now what is my theory: My theory is that if you take what we know from science about the creation of the universe and life here on earth, you will get a story that is very similar to that of the Hebrew Qblh/torah.

Note: You will not get 'YEC' or even most versions of creationism; which is at it's heart flawed because most creationism comes from only translation of the Bible and/or Torah and ignores the Qblh portions which are expansions of the original concepts.

So I would like to see what people, who have some understanding of science, can come up with.

Thank you to those who participate.
Click to expand...

Creation = beginning = nonexistant. It really is that simple. Matter has always been and will always be, despite it's form or density.
 
spidergoat said:
Everything started from a tiny fireball that expanded into the stars. Material from those stars formed planets like this one and on that planet a tiny life form grew. It's brothers and sisters were a little bit different from it, and they traveled all over the world and became the animals and plants. Some of those animals were apes, and humans are brothers of the apes.
Click to expand...

Firball, stars? Not a bad start though and good synopsis.
 
cosmictraveler said:
First of all you'd need to educate those people so they can read and write and do simple math which will take some time to do. You will need to gain their trust by telling them the truth about everything you teach them. That will take awhile and after that is done see if they ask questions about how everything started.
Click to expand...

So, you have the time to do this? You have absolutely nothing better to do than educate these people?

MZ3Boy84 said:
Creation = beginning = nonexistant. It really is that simple. Matter has always been and will always be, despite it's form or density.
Click to expand...

As I often get into this argument with my wife, I will explain this simply: Replacing one Infinity with another does not change the equation. In one infinity you have a god that created the matter and energy. In the other, you have matter and energy that were always there. You have simply changed the nature of the issue to avoid the use of the term 'God'. Bad science at best.

The conjecture that the energy has always been there comes from our acceptance of 1st law. Which applies as we know to our every day universe, but apparently not to the quantum world, which should lead any rational person to say : Is 1st Law, ACTUALLY a law, or does it have important and significant exceptions that we are fundamentally unaware of which lead to the creation of the universe as we know it. I have a problem with blind faith in any group, and blind faith in 1st law is just as bad, the universe has energy, it exists, it may or may not have been created. But simply accepting that because we can not create energy means that it can not be created is flawed thinking.

FTR: I am agnostic, I just find the description of QBLH/Torah to be very interesting, as it does paint an almost big bang description. And if the clay bubble theory of biogenisis holds out, that would mean the description of life being modled by clay would be accurate too.

Yes it had good rhythm.
 
siphra said:
So, you have the time to do this? You have absolutely nothing better to do than educate these people?



As I often get into this argument with my wife, I will explain this simply: Replacing one Infinity with another does not change the equation. In one infinity you have a god that created the matter and energy. In the other, you have matter and energy that were always there. You have simply changed the nature of the issue to avoid the use of the term 'God'. Bad science at best.

The conjecture that the energy has always been there comes from our acceptance of 1st law. Which applies as we know to our every day universe, but apparently not to the quantum world, which should lead any rational person to say : Is 1st Law, ACTUALLY a law, or does it have important and significant exceptions that we are fundamentally unaware of which lead to the creation of the universe as we know it. I have a problem with blind faith in any group, and blind faith in 1st law is just as bad, the universe has energy, it exists, it may or may not have been created. But simply accepting that because we can not create energy means that it can not be created is flawed thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, think about this. Because there is no evidence of energy/matter/the universe being created, it leaves us with the more logical probabity that it was always it has always existed since we have not seen a increase or decrease in it... at least not yet.

The same argument can be said regarding a creator. What evidence do we have to support that one exists? None. Though there is no definate answer either way, simple logic can (and does) narrow down the more possible and reasonable explination.

A good example of this that I can think of is: If I tell you that I have (if I was female) given birth to an invisible being. I can't prove that it even exists. You can't see it. I can't see it. But I tell you that I have never the less given birth it to one. Do you a) believe me or b) not? Obviously simple logic would say that since we have no evidence of anyone ever giving birth to an invisible being, that I'm probably lying - KEYWORD: PROBABLY. That means that the probability of me lying is greater, based on common logic and experience, both individually on your part and as a society as a whole, than the probability of having actually given birth to an invisible being.

Therefore, in summary, though we still don't have definite proof either way, we can nevertheless safely assume that I'm lying based on the lack of basic logic, experience and reason.



FTR: I am agnostic, I just find the description of QBLH/Torah to be very interesting, as it does paint an almost big bang description. And if the clay bubble theory of biogenisis holds out, that would mean the description of life being modled by clay would be accurate too.

Yes it had good rhythm.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you enjoyed it.
 
siphra said:
As I often get into this argument with my wife, I will explain this simply: Replacing one Infinity with another does not change the equation. In one infinity you have a god that created the matter and energy. In the other, you have matter and energy that were always there. You have simply changed the nature of the issue to avoid the use of the term 'God'. Bad science at best.
Click to expand...
Except, we have pretty good evidence that matter and energy exist. And none that god exists...
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
Well, think about this. Because there is no evidence of energy/matter/the universe being created, it leaves us with the more logical probabity that it was always it has always existed since we have not seen a increase or decrease in it... at least not yet.

The same argument can be said regarding a creator. What evidence do we have to support that one exists? None. Though there is no definate answer either way, simple logic can (and does) narrow down the more possible and reasonable explination.

A good example of this that I can think of is: If I tell you that I have (if I was female) given birth to an invisible being. I can't prove that it even exists. You can't see it. I can't see it. But I tell you that I have never the less given birth it to one. Do you a) believe me or b) not? Obviously simple logic would say that since we have no evidence of anyone ever giving birth to an invisible being, that I'm probably lying - KEYWORD: PROBABLY. That means that the probability of me lying is greater, based on common logic and experience, both individually on your part and as a society as a whole, than the probability of having actually given birth to an invisible being.

Therefore, in summary, though we still don't have definite proof either way, we can nevertheless safely assume that I'm lying based on the lack of basic logic, experience and reason.
Click to expand...

Your making alot of assumptions with respect to both my post and religion.

Niether require an invisible man in the sky, though religion does seem to favor that outcome. Consider the following : Judeo-Christian religions are the worlds largest cargo cults. It is a possibility, not very likely mind you, but possible. There are any number of sci-fi-ish concepts that could cover it. Like I said, the idea of the thread is to explore the idea that creation was explained, by whom/what is beyond is the scope of the question at hand. That is why I responded to one reply with 'You would have time for that?' The idea is simple: See what we can get by putting science into simple terms; and see how well (or poorly) it compares with world religions.
 
siphra said:
Your making alot of assumptions with respect to both my post and religion.

Niether require an invisible man in the sky, though religion does seem to favor that outcome. Consider the following : Judeo-Christian religions are the worlds largest cargo cults. It is a possibility, not very likely mind you, but possible. There are any number of sci-fi-ish concepts that could cover it. Like I said, the idea of the thread is to explore the idea that creation was explained, by whom/what is beyond is the scope of the question at hand. That is why I responded to one reply with 'You would have time for that?' The idea is simple: See what we can get by putting science into simple terms; and see how well (or poorly) it compares with world religions.
Click to expand...

You have to have evidence of a creation (original creation, not rapid expansion like the big bang) in order to even consider or analyze it. From what I can gather, your request to analyze creation, regardless of whether it was a who, what, where, how or when in regards to it's details, is equivelant to analyzing the invisible boogy man. How far are you really going to get before you simply hit a dead end?
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
You have to have evidence of a creation (original creation, not rapid expansion like the big bang) in order to even consider or analyze it. From what I can gather, your request to analyze creation, regardless of whether it was a who, what, where, how or when in regards to it's details, is equivelant to analyzing the invisible boogy man. How far are you really going to get before you simply hit a dead end?
Click to expand...

Crunchy Cat said:
Your request is flawed right off the bat. A "creation" requires a sapient life form to "create".
Click to expand...

Your both misunderstanding what I am requesting.

Are either of you familiar with cargo cults? Think in terms of limited exposure, and quick simple description of the universe from the big bang to life.

Creation is simply the word I used, your taking it to mean 'creationism' which in this case it doesn't. In fact my original post pointed that out. Rather, the purpose is to educate in simple terms a simple people, and figure out what you get as you try to explain to them things like the big bang, and biogenesis. Given that you do not have infinite time to do this, perhaps weeks, or months at the most.
 
Ok.... you want a summary of the history of the universe. Gotcha.... (I hope).

We are not sure how or why the Universe began.
Soon afterwards there was a big bang
which released radiation, particles and clouds of atoms.
Gravity condensed the atoms into galaxies where stars appeared.
Stars created new types of atoms when they
grew old and exploded as supernovae.

The new atoms were released back to the galaxy,
and joined together into cosmic dust and molecules.
New stars, such as the Sun,
formed from these materials in the spiral arms
and the dust and molecules formed planets such as Earth.
Life appeared on Earth (we are not sure how)
and soon evolved into bacteria (germs).

The evolution of life was played out
upon the moving stage formed by continental drift.

Single cells with a well-formed nucleus appeared
and plants such as algae and animals such as protozoa evolved.
These single cells began to live together in colonies
to form more complex algae and invertebrate animals.
Vertebrates such as fish appeared
about the same time as the plants began to live on land,
rapidly followed by the invertebrates.

Later vertebrates (amphibians) also evolved to live on land,
and reptiles dominated the land for millions of years.
Plants, insects and vertebrates evolved
into flowers, bees and mammals
all at about the same time.

People appeared very recently
and rapidly dominated and transformed the entire planet,
also learning how to leave it.

Computers are now being invented and have already
left the Earth and begun to explore the solar system.
They will soon begin to design themselves,
and so become independent of their human inventors.

There are vast resources in space and huge amounts of energy,
so computers will rapidly colonise this corner of the Galaxy.

The Sun will eventually burn up the Earth,
but by that time organic life will be largely irrelevant.

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/

;-)
 
Or, if you prefer....


eras_of_universe.jpg
 
MZ3Boy84 said:
Ok.... you want a summary of the history of the universe. Gotcha.... (I hope).

We are not sure how or why the Universe began.
Soon afterwards there was a big bang
which released radiation, particles and clouds of atoms.
Gravity condensed the atoms into galaxies where stars appeared.
Stars created new types of atoms when they
grew old and exploded as supernovae.
Click to expand...

Big bang?
Whats a bang?
What is radiation?
What is a particle?
What are atoms?
What is gravity?
What are galaxies?
What is explode?

These are concepts that stone age man would have no ideas of. Terms need to be simpler.

http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/

;-)
Click to expand...

You have the idea, but your not going to educate a moron with quite that complex level, above I have added questions intended to provoke thought.

The biggest problem is your using ideas that are very complex, and required literally thousands of years to develop to try to explain to people things, the idea of this excersize is to use simplest terms you can.
 
siphra said:
Big bang?
Whats a bang?
What is radiation?
What is a particle?
What are atoms?
What is gravity?
What are galaxies?
What is explode?

These are concepts that stone age man would have no ideas of. Terms need to be simpler.



You have the idea, but your not going to educate a moron with quite that complex level, above I have added questions intended to provoke thought.

The biggest problem is your using ideas that are very complex, and required literally thousands of years to develop to try to explain to people things, the idea of this excersize is to use simplest terms you can.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I will just leave that up to someone else. Having to explain what radiation is, what atoms are etc, would probably make my blood boil. I simply just don't have the patience. (Hence why I am not, and will never be, a school teacher.) But maybe someone else does.

I'd copy and paste every wikipedia page I found on the universe and the different aspects of it, but I fear that even they would be too advanced.
 
siphra said:
Your both misunderstanding what I am requesting.

Are either of you familiar with cargo cults? Think in terms of limited exposure, and quick simple description of the universe from the big bang to life.

Creation is simply the word I used, your taking it to mean 'creationism' which in this case it doesn't. In fact my original post pointed that out. Rather, the purpose is to educate in simple terms a simple people, and figure out what you get as you try to explain to them things like the big bang, and biogenesis. Given that you do not have infinite time to do this, perhaps weeks, or months at the most.
Click to expand...

I see. In that case I would try:

"Our universe is an expanding bubble. This bubble has a lot of stuff inside of it that constantly changes. When our bubble was smaller, the stuff was confined to a much smaller space and was very hot. As our bubble grew, the stuff was able to spread out and got cooler. As the stuff cooled, some of it began clumping together into various things (like water turning into ice). In our part of the universe, some of that stuff clumped into our sun and planet. Of course, this planet has its own stuff inside of it that constantly changes. Initially, some of that stuff began reacting with the sun and as more time passed, that stuff began reacting with the sun even when the sun wasn't around. This is because the stuff had changed and was storing the sunlight inside itself. This lead to a lot of stuff that was trying to store sunlight and there was only limited space where the stuff could find sunlight. Some of the stuff changed because it wasn't always getting sunlight. Some changes let the stuff move with the sunlight. Some changes let the stuff steal the sunlight from other stuff. Other changes let stuff store other stuff that had sunlight instead of getting sunlight on its own. As time passed, the stuff kept on changing to compete with other stuff for sunlight (either directly or indirectly). Some of those changes resulted in size differences, the ability to hear, the ability to see, and the ability to think. We are the current result of all those changes in the past. We are a form of stuff that stores other stuff that has sunlight. Plants are stuff that stores sunlight directly. We eat the plants and get their sunlight. Some other animals eat plants and we eat them and get their sunlight. We, of course, have changed so much that we can no longer store sunlight directly. We have to eat plants and animals for our sunlight; however, when we do store sunlight by eating plants and animals, we get to use it for a very long time. Eventually, all stuff gets too old to store sunlight so we renew ourselves (we have kids, plants lay seeds, etc.). When we renew ourselves there are often small changes. Some of those changes give advantages for storing sunlight. And after we are long gone, the process of change on our planet will continue as well as in our bubble.
 
So, you have the time to do this? You have absolutely nothing better to do than educate these people?
Click to expand...

You asked how I would answer your question and the only way that anyone will ever understand anything I say would be to first educate them no matter what time frame it took. If I can't take the time to educate others, as I have been educated by others myself, then how will they ever become enlightened with knowledge and questions about what is going on around them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top