The Hubble Tends to Validate the Bible

[Arioch]

The bible can't even get "local"(the flood, the Exodus, etc.) history right, what the hell makes anyone think that a bunch of nomadic tribes could have even guessed at what happened "in the beginning"? Personally the answer I'm sticking with right now is "we just plain don't know" as it is the truth(you know, that thing that christians are supposed to seek out).

 

[Trippy]

Personally the answer I'm sticking with right now is "we just plain don't know" as it is the truth(you know, that thing that christians are supposed to seek out).

This right here...

People don't like "I don't know" as an answer, and therein lies one of the greatest challenges facing science.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

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.

So God was made by gravity.
Interesting.
How can that be a theist perspective?

Is that something you learned from the Hubble, the Bible, or did you think it up yourself?

 

[HectorDecimal]

So God was made by gravity.
Interesting.
How can that be a theist perspective?

Is that something you learned from the Hubble, the Bible, or did you think it up yourself?

That is something logic would tell us.

Not all theist perspectives add anything to any book if it isn't in either science spectrum, atheisric or theistic, rather fill in gaps with a logical conclusion.

 

[garbonzo]

Ive read the whole thread. It took me about 4 hours, since every 10th word I didn't understand, lol.

Has anyone ever asked if Hector even believes in the Bible? You all assume he is a fundamentalist, yet he says he isn't. That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That is something logic would tell us.
Not all theist perspectives add anything to any book if it isn't in either science spectrum, atheisric or theistic, rather fill in gaps with a logical conclusion.

So logic tells us that gravity created God.
I haven't heard that before.
Could you tease out the argument a little,
and present it step by step?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.

Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.
But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

As to whether the Sun had planets around it before it ignited.
That is a question I don't know the answer to.
What I do know, is that such planets would not have enough light available for them to sustain trees with fruit, as claimed in the Biblical narrative.
Hubble, if it needed to, helps to disprove the idea by showing that the only light in nursery galaxies comes from suns which have already lit.
I believe the original Hubble, the Professor not the telescope, did some work on this very matter.

Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.
But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

As to whether the Sun had planets around it before it ignited.
That is a question I don't know the answer to.
What I do know, is that such planets would not have enough light available for them to sustain trees with fruit, as claimed in the Biblical narrative.
Hubble, if it needed to, helps to disprove the idea by showing that the only light in nursery galaxies comes from suns which have already lit.
I believe the original Hubble, the Professor not the telescope, did some work on this very matter.

Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

 

[Aqueous Id]

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

What kind of math presumes the initial conditions of the solar system? It's completely arbitrary to claim what happened, just as no one can say with certainty whether one or more of the planets were captured, the precise reason for the orbits and their deviations, or of the axial deviations.

To claim to know the unknowable, and to pretend to shore it up with a few formulas from freshman physics, is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

As for claiming gravity created God: equally arbitrary, and utterly absurd. This kind of nonsense, if you believe it, would mean you are a fool. If you don't, and this is some kind of game, then a pathological cause is at play. In either case. you should seek counseling.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Ive read the whole thread. It took me about 4 hours, since every 10th word I didn't understand, lol.

Has anyone ever asked if Hector even believes in the Bible? You all assume he is a fundamentalist, yet he says he isn't. That leads me to believe that all he is saying is that he believes that the Bible is correct in that the Earth can come before the Sun ignites. Period.

Based on his comments, he may not be aware of who he is, or incompetent to assess his "beliefs". On its face, the acknowledgement that he wishes to "validate the Bible" by a randomly designed "math" problem, implicates him in fundamentalism, because it requires an extreme literal interpretation of the most trivial element of the text - also randomly chosen - as a question of such high importance that we must now throw away all of science, and pretend that the origins of the solar system are at his command, and none of us here have anything to say about it.

It's all about him. He is either suffering from, or pretending to suffer from, a narcissism that attaches semi-delusional ideations. Pretending to know something that large communities of scientists are currently unsure of, is akin to, if not the actual manifestation of, delusions of grandeur.

This far he has refused to state a credible motive for this thread. For all we know this is his semester project in a marketing class. Of one thing I am certain: he is a liar. Otherwise he would drop the sham persona and approach with transparency.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped.

Bullshit. Liar.

Drop the game. Put your cards on the table. Who are you, what are you really up to, and what do you want with us?

 

[Trippy]

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

Liar.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Actually I did. I understand that you claimed somewhere to "suck at math" so I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped. I shouldn't have to treat anyone like a baby who keeps turniing his head when the pureed peas come into focus...

Whoops! I responded to the wrong poster here. It was "the penguin with the shotgun whose name I forget how to spell," that admitted to suck at math somewhere in all these threads.

Nonetheless, I think a real scientist would have started working through the wiki articles on "Geological Accretion," "classic mechanics" and "solid mechanics" before continuing on with mean spirited, disruptive cheap shots at the OPoster.

A mod has told me to report you people with nothing but GIGO based insults to offer. I'm doing that.

 

[Trippy]

Nonetheless, I think a real scientist would have started working through the wiki articles on "Geological Accretion," "classic mechanics" and "solid mechanics" before continuing on with mean spirited, disruptive cheap shots at the OPoster.

None of these support your - I'm going to be generous and call it a hypothesis.

 

[HectorDecimal]

Bullshit. Liar.

Drop the game. Put your cards on the table. 1.Who are you,

2. what are you really up to,

3. and what do you want with us?

You've been reported to a mod.

1. None of your buisiness.

2. Too many projects to list, but most are none of your business.

3. Decent, civilized, productive, courteous discussion.

 

[Trippy]

3. Decent, civilized, productive, courteous discussion.

And yet you rather persistently avoid as much when it is offered to you, going out of your way to antagonize people and then complaining when they react.

If you don't like mud in your eye, stop flinging poo.

 

[HectorDecimal]

None of these support your - I'm going to be generous and call it a hypothesis.

I think your apology and a demonstration of your willingness to go back in the thread and address those subjects so we can learn here is in order if you want me to respond to your GIGO oriented (and poorly defined) rhetoric.

 

[Trippy]

I think your apology and a demonstration of your willingness to go back in the thread and address those subjects so we can learn here is in order if you want me to respond to your GIGO oriented (and poorly defined) rhetoric.

Really... That's your response?

Here's the thing...

Here I specifically addressed your hypothesis:

You also would have seen the one I blatantly pointed out as having a luminous acretion disk, yet no ignition in the star.

Herbig Haro objects, of which DG Tau B is one, have ignited stars in their core. Except Class 0 (there are three classes, defined I believe by their spectral characteristics), which have proto-stars in their cores.

So, all but the very youngest of Herbig Haro objects have ignited stars in their cores (but they haven't neccessarily reached equilibrium yet, like T-Tauri variables).

The literature I have read in relation to DG Tau B suggests that it is not a Class 0 Herbig Haro.

Proto-planetary disks form with the star, as part of the accretionary process. In other words, the accretion disk that the star forms within becomes the protoplanetary disk that forms the planets. No proto-star, means no accretionary disk, means no planets.

The difference between a proplyd and a herbig-haro object is that the proplyds are externally illuminated, where the herbig haro objects are not (well, not significantly anyway).

Trolls generally accent something out of context and diminish the real evidence

Yes, they do.

You didn't respond to it.

The closest thing I've had to a response is this:

In the context of the sentence you're torturing? It would be the single event with the highest probability of occuring - IE the most likely thing to happen.

If you roll 1D6 100 times, the most likely average roll will be 3.5.

Something with a probability of 20% can still be the thing that is most likely to happen, simply because it represents a plurality within the population of events. This inspite of the fact that the odds of it not happening are still 4 in 5.

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.

Which makes little or no sense in relation to the post it is responding to.

I even addressed your claim regarding the bible by pointing out the implications of genesis in regard to gravity - IE that the bible implies that the planets and the sun formed without the assistance of gravity:
Source

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.

Then try paying attention:

9 And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. And it was so.

10 God called the dry ground land,￾ and the gathered waters he called seas.￾ And God saw that it was good.

The Earth was already stable enough to have a solid surface and oceans, before the Sun was lit.

Not only that, but is it just me? Or does this passage seem to imply that all of this occured before god made gravity

If gravity existed by this point, the oceans would have already 'gathered into one place', but the bible explicitly states that it occurs on the second day, not the first day, when the sky is created.

All of which on their own is sufficient to demonstrate empericaly that this statement of yours:

I provided an opportunity to walk through what I provided, step by step, and that has been sidestepped.

Is, if we give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you simply missed my replies, a fabrication, or if the worst - that you were aware of my replies, a 'Big Lie'.

None of which is sufficient to leave me feeling compelled to go back and revise that which I have already learned.

And that's without looking at any of the other posts in the thread.

There's an irony to this to. You keep making comments about GIGO, now, given that people are directly addressing your posts, and in your opinion, posting garbage, what does that say about your posts?

 

[Yazata]

Well no, he is making a claim that recent discoveries by the Hubble telescope corroborate the chronology in the Biblical creation story.

But he won't give any examples, or make any attempt to back up his assertion with data.

I guess that his rather fanciful ("imaginative" he calls it) personal interpretations of a couple of Hubble photographs are his attempt to address the sequence problem in Genesis that has God creating the Earth and life on it (seed-bearing flowering plants on land!) before bothering to light the Sun. But I doubt whether the scientists familiar with these astronomical images would agree with his ideas on what they show us.

Hector seems to think that conventional mainstream science is an atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible. I guess that his self-appointed mission is to try to use his own unique interpretations of selected scientific data to expose that comspiracy and to reveal what he believes to be the true facts -- the truth of the Biblical chronology in this case.

Of course, a literal reading of Genesis tells us that the very first thing that God created was the Earth. So in the Genesis scheme, the Earth would seem to be the oldest thing in the universe. The Genesis creation story never mentions any other planets and seems unaware of their existence. There's certainly no hint of accretion disks or any other modern astrophysical concepts.

So Hector seems to be deviating rather dramatically from the Genesis scheme even as he tries to argue that Hubble somehow verifies it.

Now he is saying that he has derived by logic, the proposition that gravity created God. That sounds a bit crazy to me, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I am challenging him to show the logical steps that lead to this idea.

It sounds crazy to me too. A lot of the stuff Hector writes does.

But if Hector really meant his 'gravity created God' suggestion seriously and wasn't just tossing it out troll-fashion in hopes of making the dogs bark, he's pretty clearly not defending a literal reading of the Genesis chronology as the ancient Hebrews actually conceived it.

He's seemingly heading towards his own personal and "imaginative" retelling of Genesis to suit some kind of hybrid theological-scientific theory of his own design.

 

[HectorDecimal]

I guess that his rather fanciful ("imaginative" he calls it) personal interpretations of a couple of Hubble photographs are his attempt to address the sequence problem in Genesis that has God creating the Earth and life on it (seed-bearing flowering plants on land!) before bothering to light the Sun. But I doubt whether the scientists familiar with these astronomical images would agree with his ideas on what they show us.

Hector seems to think that conventional mainstream science is an atheistic conspiracy to deny the Bible. I guess that his self-appointed mission is to try to use his own unique interpretations of selected scientific data to expose that comspiracy and to reveal what he believes to be the true facts -- the truth of the Biblical chronology in this case.

Of course, a literal reading of Genesis tells us that the very first thing that God created was the Earth. So in the Genesis scheme, the Earth would seem to be the oldest thing in the universe. The Genesis creation story never mentions any other planets and seems unaware of their existence. There's certainly no hint of accretion disks or any other modern astrophysical concepts.

So Hector seems to be deviating rather dramatically from the Genesis scheme even as he tries to argue that Hubble somehow verifies it.



It sounds crazy to me too. A lot of the stuff Hector writes does.

But if Hector really meant his 'gravity created God' suggestion seriously and wasn't just tossing it out troll-fashion in hopes of making the dogs bark, he's pretty clearly not defending a literal reading of the Genesis chronology as the ancient Hebrews actually conceived it.

He's seemingly heading towards his own personal and "imaginative" retelling of Genesis to suit some kind of hybrid theological-scientific theory of his own design.

Can you find and click on the first wiki article? Classic Mechanics?