Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Native]

First a thank you for testing and developing my explanation skills

I'm not unacquainted with the outlines of the old history of Mesopotamia, Persia and westward through Europe and North Africa. I'm much more sketchy on the rest. On that basis I think that ancient knowledge has some fixed points in it, but a lot is unclear or hypothetical. Before it can be estimated, over or under, it must first be identified, and that is, and is likely to remain, a work in progress. But I don't doubt they could be smart at times.

-----------
My prime fix point is my approach in the Milky Way Mythology which is a part of most ancient stories of creation. The identification of this connection can only be looking for the relevant references as I´ve don with the Egyptian myths.

Here I would like to tell you something from my dreams back in the 1979-1984:
A night I got this clear sentence: "the answer will come from the library". The morning after and several days after, I didn´t have any clues of it´s meaning. At that time I frequently visited the main library on Bornholm, in the Baltic Sea, where i live. I got my books and some music records and on my way out of the library, I suddenly noted an adversary pillar with an image.

It showed up to be an Atlas image of the northern and southern hemisphere with a clear marking of the most visible Milky Way contours. At that instants, I knew I got my answer to the dream sequence. And I even knew that this image was the main answer to my mythical and cosmological interests.

Mysterious? I really thought so when it happens, but later on I got more and more inspirations and confirmations. Well there I went along . . .
------------

I stated:
Native said: ↑
2. That ancient myths of creation contains real astronomical and cosmological knowledge.

We need some clearly stated examples, please. And their respect sources and best available dates. Only then will it be clear how remarkable they are.

--------------
I gave the example of Hathor, Ra and Ogdoad. This is real knowledge even if modern humans have difficulties understanding this and accepting this.

Native said: ↑
3. That this knowledge can be compared to modern science and make sense.
4. That ancient knowledge in some cases is more logical than modern cosmological science.

An answer to these will have to await the examples.

----------
Again, I gave the Egyptian examples of comparison. To me it is more logical to claim the formation in the Universe to be cyclical as told in ancient mythology, compared to a Big Bang with a linear time scale and a creation from nothing.

I said:
Native said: ↑
5. That modern cosmological science is largely based on speculations instead of natural observations.

Every time something in the modern cosmological science is contradicted by terms or by surprised scientist, this shows that former assumptions are wrong and that their speculations were wrong. And there are lots of such going on in modern cosmology.

Native said: ↑
The comparison between ancient and modern science is not a new one, but I have my own special approach in this matter and this deals specifically with the ancient myths of the Milky Way and its connection with the ancient cultural Stories of Creation, which is long forgotten by many scholars.

Long forgotten? Really?

-------------
Yes really. Although I for instants, can find reminiscences in the Egypt mythology and some other few sources, modern scholars have forgotten this. Their very interpretations of ancient myths just shows this.

Native said: ↑
Of course, this special approach to the topic leaves me with very few sources of notes since the subject is long forgotten.

That suggests you may not be in the strongest position to complain that others are speculating, doesn't it?

-----
No it doesn´t IMO. It just shows that modern scholars don´t even take the few clear sources seriously.

Native said: ↑
I've earlier linked you to the Egyptian goddess Hathor and her Milky Way connection. I´ve also linked you the an ancient Egyptian creation story, the Ogdoad, which describes the creation in a genius and symbolic way of explaining the principles in the creation.

BUT you need to point specifically to the things you find remarkable, and the dates of your evidence, or we have nothing to evaluate.

----------
Aren´t we going in circles here?

Native said: ↑
Excerpt from the Ogdoad telling:

1) “The eight deities were arranged in four male-female pairs [...]

But as Wikipedia (under 'Ogdoad') says:

There is no obvious way to allot or attribute four functions to the four pairs of gods, and it seems clear that "the ancient Egyptians themselves had no very clear idea" regarding such functions. Nevertheless, there have been attempts to assign "four ontological concepts" to the four groups. For example, in the context of the New Kingdom, Karenga (2004) uses "fluidity" (for "flood, waters"), "darkness", "unboundedness" and "invisibility" (for "repose, inactivity").

Which seems to mean we can hypothesize with considerable freedom, and no one can show whether we're wrong or right.

--------------------

There is of course no obvious way to explain this Egyptian story of creation if having NO CLUES of that it deals with primeval cosmological elements and qualities and real cosmology. If scholars for instants don´t know what the mythical concept of "primordial waters" means, they just are lost. If modern scholars cannot grasp the mythical language of describing the creative powers in male and female qualities and allegories, they also are lost.

We cannot "hypothesize with considerable freedom" here. But this is just what is going on as long as scholars don´t get the hang of it. They hypothesizes this and that and examine the words etymology without having understood the mytho-cosmological implications in the ancient stories of creation.

Native said: ↑
I fully understand if people have difficulties in grasping the ancient and mostly forgotten knowledge.

There's no way of grasping 'forgotten knowledge' so we'd be left with the remnant implied by 'mostly'. If there are some pins in our map, then we can reason from those. Again, an example would illuminate.

---------
"There's no way of grasping 'forgotten knowledge', you replied. This is NOT an answer I welcome after all my efforts and explanations where I´ve tried to explain just the forgotten knowledge.

 

[Native]

Try getting a correct statement of the law of conservation of energy before you attempt to claim that the Big Bang theory violates it.

------------
Try to explain how the laws of energy conservation worked before the Big Bang, Feel free to use your logical sense in this.

 

[Polymath257]

------------
Try to explain how the laws of energy conservation worked before the Big Bang, Feel free to use your logical sense in this.

In the model involving only general relativity, there *was* no 'before the Big Bang'. So there was no violation of the law of conservation of energy.

In those models where there *is* a 'before the Big bang', there was matter and energy prior to it also.

 

[Native]

In the model involving only general relativity, there *was* no 'before the Big Bang'. So there was no violation of the law of conservation of energy.

In those models where there *is* a 'before the Big bang', there was matter and energy prior to it also.

----------
The first sentence is utterly inconsistent nonsense! So the Big Bang itself made the very conservation law out of nothing!?

How can you get yourself and your Master Grade in Physics to write or quote such nonsense?

Oh yes, it is very convenient to have several models This just mirrors the confusion in modern cosmology.

The second sentence isn´t much better either. Why would any sane person use the term of a Big Bang if there was matter and energy in balanced motion in the Universe before all these Big Bangs?

Compared to this Big Bang nonsens, ancient cultures describes the creation in cyclical terms where everything was/is eternally changing between stages of formation, dissolution and re-formation in the Universe. Now, THERE is a natural conservation law for you.

 

[Polymath257]

----------
The first sentence is utterly inconsistent nonsense! So the Big Bang itself made the very conservation law out of nothing!?

No. You are *assuming* that time existed prior to the Big Bang---that it even makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. THAT is the point at issue. The conservation law wasn't 'made of nothing': it is simply a characteristic of the universe.

How can you get yourself and your Master Grade in Physics to write or quote such nonsense?

Well, perhaps you should learn a bit?

Oh yes, it is very convenient to have several models This just mirrors the confusion in modern cosmology.

There is a fair amount we don't know about the very early universe--prior to the first millisecond into the current expansion phase.

The second sentence isn´t much better either. Why would any sane person use the term of a Big Bang if there was matter and energy in balanced motion in the Universe before all these Big Bangs?

Because there was a pretty big phase transition at the 'Big Bang' that makes it hard to know what, if anything happened before that.

Compared to this Big Bang nonsens, ancient cultures describes the creation in cyclical terms where everything was eternally changing between stages of formation, dissolution and re-formation in the Universe. Now, THERE is a natural conservation law for you.

Yawn.

 

[ecco]

Life is so much easier for simpliticans.

If it's complex, it must be wrong.

 

[gnostic]

------------
Try to explain how the laws of energy conservation worked before the Big Bang, Feel free to use your logical sense in this.

The first sentence is utterly inconsistent nonsense! So the Big Bang itself made the very conservation law out of nothing!?

How can you get yourself and your Master Grade in Physics to write or quote such nonsense?

It is you who don’t understand the Big Bang cosmology.

The Big Bang theory only covered the evolution of the Universe, from the Planck Epoch to the present.

If you want to talk about what happen “before the Big Bang”, then you need to look something other than the Big Bang, because there are no before. The theory don’t talk of anything before, except to speculate that the pre-BB universe was infinitely hot and dense, but don’t explain it.

The standard model (1990s) is the current version of the Big Bang theory, which include the earlier transmissions (1920s and 1948) of how earlier particles and atoms formed before the formation of first stars, to the 1990, to explain why the universe is presently still expanding (eg Dark Energy and Dark Matters).

Anything outside of the Planck Epoch, as in “before the Planck Epoch” and “before the Big Bang” are unrelated to the theory, are therefore left unexplained.

And what are “left unexplained”, theoretical physicists are trying to explain in various theoretical models. It is these newer models that are speculative and “mathematical-driven” (or “proof-driven”), these models fall under the category of being “theoretical” model (not a “scientific theory”).

Examples of theoretical astrophysics and cosmological models, are What you don’t seem to understand, is that the Big Bang theory doesn’t explain everything. It never did.the Oscillating Universe Model (sometimes referred to as the Big Bounce) and Multiverse model, are outside the scopes of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory is a “scientific theory”. OUM, MM and other cosmologies are not a scientific theory; they are theoretical models.

What you don’t seem to understand, is that the Big Bang theory doesn’t explain everything. It never did. And it certainly doesn’t what going on before. There are limitations to the theory, and some areas of the theory remain unanswered, but unlike multiverse or oscillating models, the Big Bang theory is a working scientific theory, with evidences to back it up, but more to be discovered.

Hopefully, the James Webb Space Telescope (to be launched in 2020 or 2021) will answer some more questions.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Evolution and creation are both bunk. If God created anything it was Satan just to let it die, and the rest of us existed always before and will exist ever after. There is no such thing as a new born, just a baby.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How often have you read of or met cosmological scientists revising or changing an otherwise assumed cosmological truth and embraced something new?

I can think of many examples. For instance, dropping Newtonian Physics for Relativity. Or embracing the counter-intuitive Quantum Mechanics. Or exchanging Steady State for the Big Bang and an Expanding Universe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

-------------------
I don´t think it is evidence to claim that everything started from nothing in a point in a Big Bang. This claim is much worse and less logical than in many cultural stories of creation.

What I said was that the claim was based on evidence. Don't you understand that? It's the axis of scientific method.

 

[Native]

No. You are *assuming* that time existed prior to the Big Bang---that it even makes sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'. THAT is the point at issue. The conservation law wasn't 'made of nothing': it is simply a characteristic of the universe.

------------
I´m not assuming the nonsense of "time to exist before Big Bang". I just assume that any of your Big Bangs newer happened.

How could the conservation law be a characteristic before nothing was created? This is ad hoc nonsense.

Well, perhaps you should learn a bit?

-----------------
Not if it is the cosmological nonsense that you learn in school, high school or in University.

There is a fair amount we don't know about the very early universe--prior to the first millisecond into the current expansion phase.

----------------
You can say that again. "Prior to the first millisecond" is a contradiction of the assumed Big Bang time-concept.

Because there was a pretty big phase transition at the 'Big Bang' that makes it hard to know what, if anything happened before that.

---------------
This all just goes around in the minds of scientists as a Big Bang ghost.

Yawn.

--------------
Yes it must be very boring for you that some several thousand years old cultures have come up with logical explanations of cosmos.

 

[blü 2]

First a thank you for testing and developing my explanation skills

Any time.

My prime fix point is my approach in the Milky Way Mythology which is a part of most ancient stories of creation. The identification of this connection can only be looking for the relevant references as I´ve don with the Egyptian myths.

I STILL have no idea what you're saying. WHAT relevant thing is said about the Milky Way? WHO said it and WHEN? Leading up to the substantial point, WHAT was remarkable about what was said?

my dreams back in the 1979-1984:
A night I got this clear sentence: "the answer will come from the library".

Surely you can't have an answer unless there's already a question. What was the question?

Or had you been playing Cluedo?

At that time I frequently visited the main library on Bornholm, in the Baltic Sea, where i live. I got my books and some music records and on my way out of the library, I suddenly noted an adversary pillar with an image.

What's an 'adversary pillar'? From how long ago?

It showed up to be an Atlas image of the northern and southern hemisphere with a clear marking of the most visible Milky Way contours.

Did you draw this to the attention of your local historical society or anyone capable of giving an informed opinion? That is, does anyone with expertise confirm your claim?

At that instants, I knew I got my answer to the dream sequence. And I even knew that this image was the main answer to my mythical and cosmological interests.

What dream sequence? What question? What answer?

2. That ancient myths of creation contains real astronomical and cosmological knowledge.

As I said, they could see the earth, sea and sky and we can see the earth, sea and sky. I keep waiting for you to show me something extraordinary, an unambiguous astronomical anachronism, something they knew but which they couldn't have known, like, star X is actually a distant galaxy, or, Alpha Centauri is the nearest star to our sun, or something like that.

I gave the example of Hathor, Ra and Ogdoad. This is real knowledge

This is getting exasperating. WHAT, exactly, about Hathor, Ra or their friends is remarkable? WHAT did they know that they couldn't have known? WHAT? WHAT?

 

[Native]

If you want to talk about what happen “before the Big Bang”, then you need to look something other than the Big Bang, because there are no before. The theory don’t talk of anything before, except to speculate that the pre-BB universe was infinitely hot and dense, but don’t explain it.

This is in itself a very poor scientific approach, except from the logical speculations of a pre-BB Universe. (Which kind of would be on the line of the ancient cyclical perception of everything)

And what are “left unexplained”, theoretical physicists are trying to explain in various theoretical models. It is these newer models that are speculative and “mathematical-driven” (or “proof-driven”), these models fall under the category of being “theoretical” model (not a “scientific theory”).

I´m fully aware of the different BB-models and to me it doesn´t make any difference if a model is theoretical og scientific. It is the very idea of a BB which is contraintuitive and illogical.

What you don’t seem to understand, is that the Big Bang theory doesn’t explain everything. It never did. And it certainly doesn’t what going on before. There are limitations to the theory, and some areas of the theory remain unanswered, but unlike multiverse or oscillating models, the Big Bang theory is a working scientific theory, with evidences to back it up, but more to be discovered.

.

I agree that the BB-theory doesn´t explain everything. (To me it explains nothing at all)

I don´t know which BB-model the scientists in the linked article below are counting on:

Scientists have now detected a galaxy COSMOS-AzTEC-1 which surprises the scientists. According to the formation theory and predictions in the Big Bang theory. A 12.4 bill. years old galaxy, close to the 13.8 bill age of the Universe, are giving the scientist some problems

Quote:
"Monster galaxies, or starburst galaxies, form stars at a startling pace; 1000 times higher than the star formation in our Galaxy. But why are they so active? To tackle this problem, researchers need to know the environment around the stellar nurseries. Drawing detailed maps of molecular clouds is an important step to scout a cosmic monster".

A galaxy that young, according to the Big Bang theory, shouldn´t be that active, so developed and organized, but there it is.

So what will the scientist do now? Skip the entire Big Bang idea since the predictability has failed?

Nope! It is more likely that they just add a new metaphysical "dark something" and keep on the right wrong track of illogical speculations.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
My prime fix point is my approach in the Milky Way Mythology which is a part of most ancient stories of creation. The identification of this connection can only be looking for the relevant references as I´ve don with the Egyptian myths.

I STILL have no idea what you're saying. WHAT relevant thing is said about the Milky Way? WHO said it and WHEN? Leading up to the substantial point, WHAT was remarkable about what was said?

??? You are gong around in mouse-wheel! Don´t you read what I´m writing? Don´t you read the links?

You hardly can expect anyone to refer to a 3.200 BC myth and point to which person said this or that. This 3.200 BC knowledge comes from someone reading the hieroglyphs and that´s it. If you don´t believe in this, I think we shall take a pause now.

IMO, we are getting nowhere fast.

This is getting exasperating. WHAT, exactly, about Hathor, Ra or their friends is remarkable? WHAT did they know that they couldn't have known? WHAT? WHAT?

Thanks for our conversation for now - If you still are interested, I suggest you to read it all over once more or several times.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes it must be very boring for you that some several thousand years old cultures have come up with logical explanations of cosmos.

It must be very tiring lying to yourself all the time:

Only you are convinced that "some several thousand years old cultures have come up with logical explanations of cosmos." And you're trying to use it like a childish "gotcha" in the style of "i know you are but what am i?"

I find it rude to make assumptions like that of people: You don't have a proper argument so you're going to try and insult your opposition. That's what "people" like you do.

Consequently, it reflects poorly on your argument as well as your character.

 

[Polymath257]

------------
I´m not assuming the nonsense of "time to exist before Big Bang". I just assume that any of your Big Bangs newer happened.

YOu *assume* this in spite of the evidence that some form of BB actually did happen.

How could the conservation law be a characteristic before nothing was created? This is ad hoc nonsense.

Precisely. The Law only applies once time exists, which starts at the BB (in the simplest scenario).

-----------------
Not if it is the cosmological nonsense that you learn in school, high school or in University.


----------------
You can say that again. "Prior to the first millisecond" is a contradiction of the assumed Big Bang time-concept.


---------------
This all just goes around in the minds of scientists as a Big Bang ghost.


--------------
Yes it must be very boring for you that some several thousand years old cultures have come up with logical explanations of cosmos.

Logical explanations? Hardly. Attempts to understand the little they saw? Yes, definitely. Anything close to a knowledge of galaxies? No way.

 

[Native]

It must be very tiring lying to yourself all the time:

Only you are convinced that "some several thousand years old cultures have come up with logical explanations of cosmos." And you're trying to use it like a childish "gotcha" in the style of "i know you are but what am i?"

I find it rude to make assumptions like that of people: You don't have a proper argument so you're going to try and insult your opposition. That's what "people" like you do.

Consequently, it reflects poorly on your argument as well as your character.

--------------
How can you judge? Are you an expert on ancient mythology and the cultural stories of creation?

 

[Darkstorn]

--------------
How can you judge? Are you an expert on ancient mythology and the cultural stories of creation?

I'm only making a judgement of your argument and character there.

But by your logic you can't judge science since you aren't an expert. In fact, from the looks of it, you aren't even a novice. But i have studied ancient mythology. Slavic, Finnic, Norse / Germanic, Chinese, Indian etc.

Probably more than you in fact.

Specifically, even your mythology seems to be a blanket amalgamation of your irrational thoughts.

/E: I make the claim that instead of studying ancient mythology, you have studied new age crap.

 

[Native]

Precisely. The Law only applies once time exists, which starts at the BB (in the simplest scenario).

Master Grade education? So the conservation law only began to work when time is created?

Why don´t you just claim that the entire creation and all its qualities was made by god in a miraculous action? This is just as scientific as your BB-nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

Master Grade education? So the conservation law only began to work when time is created?

Yes, of course. Do you know the precise statement of that conservation law? "The total energy at one time is the same as the total energy at any other time". Time figures in pretty heavily there.

Why don´t you just claim that the entire creation and all its qualities was made by god in a miraculous action? This is just as scientific as your BB-nonsense.

Because that isn't how it works. The BB has a very precise mathematical model that agrees with observations.