Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[Meow Mix]

Thus... with such an impure date, my position most assuredly does have merit...

Ok, granted.

However, here is a reference from 2010 that says 200,000 years.

Krzysztof A. Cyran and Marek Kimmel, 'Alternatives to the Wright–Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating', Theoretical Population Biology Article in Press, Corrected Proof doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.001

You can follow the link to the article, though extremely unfortunately it's a pay journal; and it doesn't say in the abstract their findings. However you can type the author's name in google and clearly see that all the media outlets shout that the authors' finding was ~200,000 years.

 

[Bowman]

no it doesnt, i put a reference from a few weeks ago, your position has no merrit.

Fact is, the Rice article does not conclude it's headline.

The only thing this article does is confirm the 20+ year old estimate which your sister provided for us.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh, I also find it ironic that your source in fact cites my 1980's source that I cited

 

[Bowman]

Ok, granted.

However, here is a reference from 2010 that says 200,000 years.

Krzysztof A. Cyran and Marek Kimmel, 'Alternatives to the Wright–Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating', Theoretical Population Biology Article in Press, Corrected Proof doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2010.06.001

You can follow the link to the article, though extremely unfortunately it's a pay journal; and it doesn't say in the abstract their findings. However you can type the author's name in google and clearly see that all the media outlets shout that the authors' finding was ~200,000 years.

You keep ignoring the 'error bars'...what are they?

Surely you use tolerances in your study of cosmology...and yet, you choose to ingore them in other sciences...

 

[Bowman]

Oh, I also find it ironic that your source in fact cites my 1980's source that I cited

Specifically chosen to show just how outdated yours was...

 

[Meow Mix]

You keep ignoring the 'error bars'...what are they?

Surely you use tolerances in your study of cosmology...and yet, you choose to ingore them in other sciences...

I'm not even sure why we're debating the age of mDNA Eve in the first place... what's the significance? The point I think that was originally being discussed is that mDNA Eve was not the only woman in existence during her time.

Do you at least agree with that universally accepted tidbit amongst biologists? If so, then the time frame of mDNA Eve is pretty irrelevant to whatever it was we were discussing.

 

[Meow Mix]

Here's all I could find on the possible ranges of dates:

"The estimates produced by models that assume population growth occurred in discrete, random bursts fell within 10 percent of each other. When taking into consideration models that assumed smooth growth, that range expanded by up to 20 percent. These models also tended to estimate that mitochondrial Eve lived earlier, according to Kimmel."

Statisticians Confirm Age for "Mother of Us All" | Mitochondrial Eve | Human Evolution | LiveScience

So, with discrete, random bursts of population growths the models would have had a range +/- 20,000 years assuming 200,000 was the mean (180,000 - 220,000 ya).

The largest range, 20%, would have yielded (again with the assumption that 200,000 was the mean) a range of 160,000 - 240,000 ya.

Either way, it seems 50 kya is out of the picture as of data in 2010.

 

[gnostic]

Your very first reference was perhaps valid in 1987, however, this is 23 years later.

Look at what your reference looks like now...

It's far better than your reference, the Bible, some 2000 years +, which has even less merit in any area of science and history.

 

[AxisMundi]

I'm not sure exactly what it is you're asking -- a cyclic universe incorporates the BBE. In such a universe there are infinite BBE's.

Are you asking for evidence that the BBE occurred, or are you asking for evidence against cyclic BBE's?

Well, you DID break into a conversation, Ms. Mix.

The other poster was attempting to claim that there was evidence for the BBE and none for the Cyclic Universe.

I was merely responding with the simple fact that there is as much evidence for the one as for the other.

I am quite familiar with several hypothesis and theories involved in both.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, you DID break into a conversation, Ms. Mix.

The other poster was attempting to claim that there was evidence for the BBE and none for the Cyclic Universe.

I was merely responding with the simple fact that there is as much evidence for the one as for the other.

I am quite familiar with several hypothesis and theories involved in both.

That's true, I don't mean to be rude by bursting in or anything.

However there is evidence against cyclic universes while there is not good evidence against the BBE. There is currently no reason to suspect the accelerating expansion of the universe will diminish, which puts cyclic universe hypothesis on a back burner until there is reason to doubt the universe will continue expanding.

Most theories of quantum gravity don't support a cyclic universe being possible either; though there is one that does (and it's one of the better ones, loop quantum gravity). So, it [cyclic universe] may be possible but with current data it is unlikely.

 

[AxisMundi]

There is no Biblical mandate for summing the generations to arrive at a creation date.

The 'day's' mentioned in Genesis represent epochs of time.

Only the Koran claims a 6,000 year old Universe.

1. Point? It still arrives at the 6,000 year date. I also note you aviod the rest of my list as well.

2. Apologetic horse poo. In no translation is anything other than "day" used.

3. An Islamic hater are we?

 

[AxisMundi]

no it doesnt, i put a reference from a few weeks ago, your position has no merrit.

Apperently our "learned friend" has no idea what submitting findings for peer review means, or much about the scientific method at all.

I also note the huge discrepencies in the claims he makes, which I'm sure is the reason for his particular "bait and switch" posting style, hoping people will not go back and check what he had said earlier.

 

[AxisMundi]

Specifically chosen to show just how outdated yours was...

What you offered was the hypothesis of three researchers, not accepted peer reviewed findings.

The accepted date is in the 200,000 range.

 

[AxisMundi]

That's true, I don't mean to be rude by bursting in or anything.

However there is evidence against cyclic universes while there is not good evidence against the BBE. There is currently no reason to suspect the accelerating expansion of the universe will diminish, which puts cyclic universe hypothesis on a back burner until there is reason to doubt the universe will continue expanding.

Most theories of quantum gravity don't support a cyclic universe being possible either; though there is one that does (and it's one of the better ones, loop quantum gravity). So, it [cyclic universe] may be possible but with current data it is unlikely.

No need to apologize, and I welcome any corrections someone more steeped in physics might bring.

Breaking into a convo can sometimes lead to comments taken out of context tho, which was really all I was noting.

It is now surmised that at the center of galaxies are enormous singularities, gravity wells in other words, yes?

The hypothesis I am familair states that there is also an enorouse graveity well at the center of mass/energy, and that, as occurs with all forms of energy, the momentum of the BBE will eventually wear out, transform, in other words. The outward expansion will slow, eventually stop and balance with the gravitation pull of said singularity (left over from the BBE), and that the gravitation pull of said singularity will pull everything back in to itself.

Considering the relatively young age of the universe, we would be in our universal 'spring" and everything would be in a huge hurry to go nowhere, so to speak.

 

[Meow Mix]

No need to apologize, and I welcome any corrections someone more steeped in physics might bring.

Breaking into a convo can sometimes lead to comments taken out of context tho, which was really all I was noting.

It is now surmised that at the center of galaxies are enormous singularities, gravity wells in other words, yes?

The hypothesis I am familair states that there is also an enorouse graveity well at the center of mass/energy, and that, as occurs with all forms of energy, the momentum of the BBE will eventually wear out, transform, in other words. The outward expansion will slow, eventually stop and balance with the gravitation pull of said singularity (left over from the BBE), and that the gravitation pull of said singularity will pull everything back in to itself.

Considering the relatively young age of the universe, we would be in our universal 'spring" and everything would be in a huge hurry to go nowhere, so to speak.

Yes, there are huge black holes in the center of [most] galaxies, including ours. Fun fact: since the density of a black hole is calculated on its mass vs. its event horizon, and the event horizon expands geometrically greater than the mass (4:1 ratio on the Planck scale, or if you think of it as a sphere it expands by the cube of the radius), massive enough black holes actually have a density less than water.

Anyways, there is not a singularity left over from the BBE as there's no "center" of the universe for it to sit at -- coupled with the fact that there may well not have been a singularity at all during the BBE.

Also, the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down; it's accelerating. If we were to expect it to eventually reverse and succumb to gravity then it couldn't be accelerating. Worse still is that dark energy works inversely to gravity: it gets stronger with distance. As the expansion continues, it will accelerate more; not decelerate to begin re-converging in a crunch.

Until data that contradicts our current data becomes available, the expansion will never end in principle.

 

[McBell]

Is Bowman EVER going to present his sources?

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes, there are huge black holes in the center of [most] galaxies, including ours. Fun fact: since the density of a black hole is calculated on its mass vs. its event horizon, and the event horizon expands geometrically greater than the mass (4:1 ratio on the Planck scale, or if you think of it as a sphere it expands by the cube of the radius), massive enough black holes actually have a density less than water.

Anyways, there is not a singularity left over from the BBE as there's no "center" of the universe for it to sit at -- coupled with the fact that there may well not have been a singularity at all during the BBE.

Also, the expansion of the universe isn't slowing down; it's accelerating. If we were to expect it to eventually reverse and succumb to gravity then it couldn't be accelerating. Worse still is that dark energy works inversely to gravity: it gets stronger with distance. As the expansion continues, it will accelerate more; not decelerate to begin re-converging in a crunch.

Until data that contradicts our current data becomes available, the expansion will never end in principle.

I may not be a physists, but I'm no noob.

Please note that I stated "center of mass/energy" and not the universe.

And the continuing expansion shows we are still in the "universal spring".

And since when has "dark matter" picked up inverse gravity properties? Last I heard of it, it was a theoretical substance whose strong gravity field helped keep galaxies together.

 

[Meow Mix]

I may not be a physists, but I'm no noob.

Please note that I stated "center of mass/energy" and not the universe.

And the continuing expansion shows we are still in the "universal spring".

And since when has "dark matter" picked up inverse gravity properties? Last I heard of it, it was a theoretical substance whose strong gravity field helped keep galaxies together.

I know you're not a noob

What do you mean by center of mass/energy if it's not the center of the universe?

Also, if I typed "dark matter" I meant "dark energy." I'm pretty sure I typed dark energy though.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ha, and as it turns out, some folks are actually combining brane theory with dark energy theories to breathe life back into cyclic models:

[hep-th/0610213] Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology

(abstract)

PDF: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0610/0610213v2.pdf

Though I'm just a student I haven't heard whispers about it yet, though. But, as I said, cyclic universe just isn't likely at this moment. Right now cosmology is just aching for the next revolution, pun intended, so we'll see what happens over the next 20 years.

I <3 arxiv.org. I hate sites that make you pay for papers. Science should be free to the public.

 

[AxisMundi]

I know you're not a noob

What do you mean by center of mass/energy if it's not the center of the universe?

Also, if I typed "dark matter" I meant "dark energy." I'm pretty sure I typed dark energy though.

What is the unverse? Is it the expanse of "empty" or the mass and/or energy contained within?

I say mass/energy to try and stay away from the debate of what contitutes the universe.

Yes you did type "dark energy", I stand corrected.