The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

[aaqucnaona]

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.

Seal calling walrus fat?

And please substantiate that excuse or retract it.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Prove that. I've never seen anything that takes this beyond an educated guess.

Agreed, this isnt my field and I dont dabble in it much. Claim retracted, reintroduced as an educated guess.

There are evidences that TEND to prove this is ONE system of creation.

But the important bit is, where are the evidences that this ISN'T the ONLY system of existence?

 

[HectorDecimal]

Seal calling walrus fat?

And please substantiate that excuse or retract it.

Before I do such, let's see if all that would suggest such ceases and decists.

BTW... a walrus likely would seem fat to a seal, if not perhaps we'd have Navy Walruses...

 

[Yazata]

( Gen. 1:3-16 are not extraordinary claims

Genesis 1 purports to be an account of the miraculous creation of the entire universe by a god. Almost every aspect of the Genesis 1 chronology contradicts the modern scientific understanding of the history of the universe, the Earth, and life on this planet.

they are based on someone's ancient vision, no different that Einstein's vision of relativity and light being bent by gravity.

Einstein's hypotheses were informed speculations based closely on scientific observation. Even the parts that contradicted classical Newtonian understandings were consistent with problematic experimental findings such as the Michelson-Morley results. Einstein's theories weren't accepted until their predictions had been verified in multiple ways. And even now, nobody is suggesting that Einstein's theories are the written/spoken word of God.

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.

Hubble has evidence that the Earth is the oldest object in creation, created on the very first day, before any stars?

Hubble has evidence that "waters" exist up above the sky?

Hubble has evidence that the Earth had already accreted, cooled, and formed a solid surface complete with water oceans, before the Sun existed?

Hubble has evidence that the first forms of life to appear on Earth were complex and highly-evolved seed and fruit-bearing plants on land, and not simple prokaryotes in the seas near geothermal vents or something?

Hubble has evidence that seed and fruit bearing plants already existed on Earth even before the time of the Sun's ignition?

Hubble has evidence that the first animals to appear on this planet were highly evolved birds, and not an anatomically simple phylum like sponges?

Hubble has evidence that the first quadripeds to appear on Earth's surface included the same recognizable "kinds" of mammals ("livestock") that we see today?

Hubble has evidence that this whole rather fanciful chronology, which is dramatically at variance with science's understanding at almost every point, happened for miraculous reasons that are revealed uniquely in Hebrew scripture?

 

[HectorDecimal]

Yazata,

I think you need to read all I've posted to you SEVERAL times, before I take it further for you. How's about posting in my "Intro?" We can make that about you as well...

 

[Rhaedas]

You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes. It probably depends on what is needed at the time.

Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye.

 

[HectorDecimal]

You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes. It probably depends on what is needed at the time.

Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye.

Look at your copy. Do you find my writing in it?

Why don't you tell us what firmament means? ... it'll be on the test

 

[Yazata]

You forgot the firmament. Or did that fall when the waters fell? I forget how the fable goes.

The ancient Hebrews seem to have imagined the vault or arch of the sky (the "firmament") as a solid tangible dome over the flat earth. Its inner surface is lit up and blue during the day and dark and black at night. So day and night are separate phenomena from illumination by the Sun and Moon. These two bodies, along with the tiny pinpoint stars, are apparently imagined as being lights that move around on the inner surface of the dome.

So I guess that in this Genesis 1 scheme, the firmament is still up there, since we still see the blue inner surface of the dome up there in the sky during the day.

Interesting how so many can read between the lines of the bible, even though the bible has a passage that states to not add or take away from the bible, it is what it is (I guess that didn't apply in the Council of Nicaea :bugeye.

They reinterpret it as it suits their theological ideas. Even Paul was busily reinterpreting Isaiah in ways that conventional Jews couldn't accept, rereading its middle 'suffering servant' sections as if they were 'prophecies' of Jesus.

But yeah, the Genesis 1 account is so radically different than modern scientific cosmology, that individuals who want to embrace science (as Hector apparently does) while continuing to hold onto a literalist interpretation of Genesis (which he seemingly wants to do as well) will have to subject themselves to intellectual contortions worthy of an Olympic gold medal gymnast.

 

[HectorDecimal]

The ancient Hebrews seem to have imagined the vault or arch of the sky (the "firmament") as a solid tangible dome over the flat earth.

Do you speak and read fluent Ancient Hebrew or are you quoting an older English translation such as the KJV?

 

[HectorDecimal]

The hubble (bifocals and reading chart installed ) has shown us forming star systems in the Orion Nebula especially. Although there is controversy over the nature of the PROTOPlanetarYDisk's (Pro(to)plyds), mine especially throwing sand in the wheel of discovery, classic physics would tell us that the planets are completely formed and, with the nebular light still present, even life could be forming on them PRIOR to the star's ignition. I have found no other religion, Koran, Confuscius or otherwise that gets that simple chronology correct. 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.

Other perspectives beyond what the telescopes see, is the "unseen;" the 5th Dimension as Kaluza-Klein dubs it. String theory rearranges all that along with many who advocate time travel. If someone believes in prophecy, they believe in time travel. Planck Time is an accepted basic unit of time based around the speed of the photon. If we can only take in less than 100 frames per second, a stream of photons generate millions of interstices between those frames. The unseen goes on forever.

I find it fascinating that the main essence of this thread has been lost to semantics.

This aspect has a little recent validating evidence. What I find even more fascinating is how anyone can enter such a unique discussion to destroy it's essential purpose, but few can offer anything to corroborate when it's all available at a finger click. I'm thankful that NASA and Science Daily stay neutral when serving up the findings. Maybe a few others in here somewhere will find it in themselves to not cover the obviously strange light with a bushel basket.

 

[HectorDecimal]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

Voila! Light from nothing!

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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.

This light, as bright as sunlight, which fell on planets before the sun was even lit, and allowed them to have trees with fruit.
Are you saying that Hubble provides evidence of this?
Have you any links to articles that say this?

Secondly, you keep mentioning nebular light, as if clouds of gas had light.
The only light in nebulae is from early stars forming.

 

[HectorDecimal]

This light, as bright as sunlight, which fell on planets before the sun was even lit, and allowed them to have trees with fruit.
Are you saying that Hubble provides evidence of this?
Have you any links to articles that say this?

Secondly, you keep mentioning nebular light, as if clouds of gas had light.
The only light in nebulae is from early stars forming.[/QUOTE]

The Hubble shows this. Correct?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of science if that's your attitude.

Both the BB model and black holes were derived mathematically from principles which had already lead to verified and accurate predictions about observable phenomena. They both then made predictions about phenomena we couldn't yet measure but have since measured, such as the power spectrum of the CMB, fluctuations in the CMB, elemental abundance in the universe, orbital mechanics of galaxies and even space-time warping around our own planet. The same description for a black hole applies to Earth and it's what makes the GPS network work.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111118133050.htm

Voila! Light from nothing!

Except it isn't 'nothing' in the fullest possible sense, as a quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nothing' you're referring to. Furthermore it is done within the arena of space-time, which itself is not nothing.

The bible is simply not an accurate description of how the universe works or how it came about or even the recent history of Earth. Hell, it can't even get pi right, something you could check with a stick and a piece of string! The bible is demonstrably wrong on a great many things about reality, never mind being full of some of the most bigoted ignorant hateful hypocritical xenophobic bullshit ever put into text. If someone, for whatever unjustified and irrational reason, is compelled to think there's something to Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic religions they can only really take it as allegory and metaphor because taking it literally is not only irrational and unjustified, it's denying reality, demonstrably, right in front of your face, reality.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

4 pages in and I have seen no Hubble evidence presented that validates the Bible. To the OP, I would suggest listing out the assertions in the bible you are focusing on and how the Hubble validates each one.

 

[HectorDecimal]

You have a fundamental lack of understanding of science if that's your attitude.
Both the BB model and black holes were derived mathematically from principles which had already lead to verified and accurate predictions about observable phenomena. They both then made predictions about phenomena we couldn't yet measure but have since measured, such as the power spectrum of the CMB, fluctuations in the CMB, elemental abundance in the universe, orbital mechanics of galaxies and even space-time warping around our own planet. The same description for a black hole applies to Earth and it's what makes the GPS network work.Except it isn't 'nothing' in the fullest possible sense, as a quantum vacuum is not the same as 'nothing' you're referring to. Furthermore it is done within the arena of space-time, which itself is not nothing.

The bible is simply not an accurate description of how the universe works or how it came about or even the recent history of Earth. Hell, it can't even get pi right, something you could check with a stick and a piece of string! The bible is demonstrably wrong on a great many things about reality, never mind being full of some of the most bigoted ignorant hateful hypocritical xenophobic bullshit ever put into text. If someone, for whatever unjustified and irrational reason, is compelled to think there's something to Christianity or any of the other Abrahamic religions they can only really take it as allegory and metaphor because taking it literally is not only irrational and unjustified, it's denying reality, demonstrably, right in front of your face, reality.

The same could be said about you, but neither of us are the topic. You do know that the definition of trolling is intentionally trying to get under another member's skin... don't you? Maybe you have a fundamental lack of undersatnding in that. Wiki defines trolling...

Tell me something an astrophysicist wouldn't already know. This merely grasping at straws to build... well... a straw man. The point is if the Hubble can actually see it, it isn't a black body. COBE picks up the presence of event horizons as does WMAP. Exactly what's in the center requires some good theorization, still, per the topic, we are really talking about the physics of stellar vs planetary acretion.

For our purposes "nothing" is relative, same as absolute zero would be different for space where photons exist, space where dark matter exists and space where absolute nothing exists. The inability to imagine those different areas of space is... well... lack of imagination.

And there's the straw man. Not to harp (neithe pun intended nor conspiracy theories... ) but the topic is still about the chronology of stellar vs planetary acretion and compares the Bible against other religions that conflict with that correct sequence that soooo many so-called scientists rearrange to suit the Atheist, or even more specifically anti-Biblical, religion. Unfortunately the Hubble has drawn back the curtain a bit and now the frailty of "Great" science is seen and how it has been nothing short of bamboozling people of essentially non-mathematical careers with the illusion that those in academic tenure just couldn't be wrong. Of course those types who enjoy nothing better than keeping their thumb on the opposition will want to pervert the wrods of anyone who challenges their religious belief. To render disdain for the Bible's depiction of rudimentary, yes, unrefined, knowledge is like punching one's aging father in the eye. Why wouldn't that Dad disown that rebellious child?

 

[HectorDecimal]

4 pages in and I have seen no Hubble evidence presented that validates the Bible. To the OP, I would suggest listing out the assertions in the bible you are focusing on and how the Hubble validates each one.

I suggest a more thorough reading. That has been done to a reasonable degree. There has yet to be shown any evidence that proves proplyds acrete the star to ignition prior to the life supporting phase of a planet. Evidence has been shown to depict planetary acretion with sufficient light to grow trees bearing fruit, but any tree bears some kind of fruit if only a maple seed or an acorn. The OP is not required to be redundant.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I suggest a more thorough reading. That has been done to a reasonable degree.

Then I presume you should have no difficulty showing me where.

There has yet to be shown any evidence that proves proplyds acrete the star to ignition prior to the life supporting phase of a planet.

I can't imagine why I would care about that. I am after the evidence to demonstrate your claim. Just for giggles, you mentioned "life supporting phase of *a* planet". Unless my knowledge is dated, I *think* the bible is only referring to earth. Our sun is 4.6 billion years old (roughly the same age as our solar system). The earth is 4.55 billion years old (a little younger). Plant life is required for mammals to exist. Plant life requires heavy doses of photons from the sun to exist. I don't know how this fits in to anything you are asserting, but I suspect it is non-supporitve.

Evidence has been shown to depict planetary acretion with sufficient light to grow trees bearing fruit, but any tree bears some kind of fruit if only a maple seed or an acorn. The OP is not required to be redundant.

Let me see if I am understanding your assertion correctly. Are you stating that you have demonstrated that a planet formed on its own with sufficient photon output (in the absence of a local sun) to provide energy for life to evolve into trees? If so, you will have to show me where because I don't see it.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Then I presume you should have no difficulty showing me where.

I can't imagine why I would care about that. I am after the evidence to demonstrate your claim. Just for giggles, you mentioned "life supporting phase of *a* planet". Unless my knowledge is dated, I *think* the bible is only referring to earth. Our sun is 4.6 billion years old (roughly the same age as our solar system). The earth is 4.55 billion years old (a little younger). Plant life is required for mammals to exist. Plant life requires heavy doses of photons from the sun to exist. I don't know how this fits in to anything you are asserting, but I suspect it is non-supporitve.



Let me see if I am understanding your assertion correctly. Are you stating that you have demonstrated that a planet formed on its own with sufficient photon output (in the absence of a local sun) to provide energy for life to evolve into trees? If so, you will have to show me where because I don't see it.[/QUOTE]

Difficulty? no. Willingness to spoon feed? Yes. I suggest seeking out the answers to yazata's trolling.

trolling here too? The Science of the Bible, meaning the archaic term that would apply to teachings of the hierarchy that define what Moses meant devoid of his input, is similar to the veil of superiority worn by modern scientific hierarchy. God gives VISION to whoever He wants. He inspires WORDS into the minds of whoever He chooses. He sometimes hardens the heart of a mean spirited person so He can justify, as though He needs to, giving them a major can of whoopass, regardless of whether they try to weasle their way out of it. (Referenceharoah) No Biblical priest, save for those CHOSEN by Him, can accurately define what another chosen one was given to share with humanity. Similarly no modern science "priest" will accurately define what their own instruments show them if it conflicts with the food chain of their atheistic belief. Like Jesus, some of those outside the food chain or uncaring of that food chain, give the priests the finger.

Actually I'm saying Leonardo DaVinci, Galileo, Kepler and Sir Isaac Newton did that. I could add, though, that the Yellowstone Supervolcano gives us a reference of a good deal of other parts of the scenario surrounding Genesis. THIS thread is about the Hubble and things we can't actually see close up with our own eyes.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Lame, that response doesn't warrant further discussion.