Quran Vs Bible in light of science

[AxisMundi]

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.

Science is a way to answer everything, but everything doesn't have an answer yet, I guess.

I hold to the cyclic hypothesis simply because there had to be something before the BB, some source for the materials that comprised the event.

Considering the process of birth-life-death-rebirth exhibited throughout the cosmos, it makes sence to me.

 

[skydivephil]

There may well have been something before the big bang. In fact mdoern infaltionary cosomology can be used (google eternal inflation) to show our big bang was simply one of many. That would imply our big bang was not an ultimate begining. However that would not imply anything about our big bang re collapsing in a big crunch.
It also means that the many theist claims that the big bang proves an "ultimate begining " are not correct.
Question for Meow Minx, I understand thhat in LQG , space cant be infinitley compressed and therefore our big bang was a bounce from a previous universe but I dont see why that implies our universe will recollapse?
Also Roger Penrose has a new book coming out next week presenting his clycic model but its noting like the BIg Crunch scenario, the universe does not re compress.
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe: Amazon.co.uk: Roger Penrose: Books

 

[Meow Mix]

There may well have been something before the big bang. In fact mdoern infaltionary cosomology can be used (google eternal inflation) to show our big bang was simply one of many. That would imply our big bang was not an ultimate begining. However that would not imply anything about our big bang re collapsing in a big crunch.
It also means that the many theist claims that the big bang proves an "ultimate begining " are not correct.
Question for Meow Minx, I understand thhat in LQG , space cant be infinitley compressed and therefore our big bang was a bounce from a previous universe but I dont see why that implies our universe will recollapse?
Also Roger Penrose has a new book coming out next week presenting his clycic model but its noting like the BIg Crunch scenario, the universe does not re compress.
Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe: Amazon.co.uk: Roger Penrose: Books

I wasn't saying that our universe will recollapse -- I'm the one who's been saying it's expanding and accelerating as it does so, making a recollapse unlikely with our current knowledge.

I've also been saying that the BBE wasn't the beginning of ontological existence.

So, we're pretty much in complete agreement

 

[skydivephil]

I understand you are not arguing the universe will recollapse but I thought you had said Loop Quanutm Gravity is a cyclical theory. My take on it is that it implies ou universe bounced from a previous universe but says nothing about that fate of our universe. Do you think that's fair take?

 

[AxisMundi]

Ms. Mix, an anology.

Throw a ball stright up, does it not accelorate, slow, stop momentarily, and then begin to fall back to earth?

What is there to say the matter/energy of the universe cannot do the same if there is indeed a alrge gravity well at the center of matter/energy??

 

[Meow Mix]

I understand you are not arguing the universe will recollapse but I thought you had said Loop Quanutm Gravity is a cyclical theory. My take on it is that it implies ou universe bounced from a previous universe but says nothing about that fate of our universe. Do you think that's fair take?

I mentioned that cyclical theory was compatible with LQG, I can see how you'd take it that way -- but I was just saying that if we were to reverse the acceleration of the expansion, and if LQG is true, then it might be possible. However, that's a lot of "ifs."

 

[Meow Mix]

Ms. Mix, an anology.

Throw a ball stright up, does it not accelorate, slow, stop momentarily, and then begin to fall back to earth?

What is there to say the matter/energy of the universe cannot do the same if there is indeed a alrge gravity well at the center of matter/energy??

As soon as the ball leaves your hand, aside from the impulse/force your hand gives it, the ball is accelerating -- downward. (i.e., decelerating).

What's happening with the universe right now is as if, to borrow your analogy, the ball left your hand and accelerated upwards.

"Deceleration" is not really a word, there's just acceleration in a particular direction... a ball leaving your hand in gravity is (even while it's travelling +y) accelerating towards -y.

 

[darkendless]

Ms. Mix, an anology.

Throw a ball stright up, does it not accelorate, slow, stop momentarily, and then begin to fall back to earth?

What is there to say the matter/energy of the universe cannot do the same if there is indeed a alrge gravity well at the center of matter/energy??

Well actually the ball is accelerating at -9.8 m/s in a general sese but is subject to wind friction

 

[gnostic]

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.

The Genesis doesn't mention epoch or thousands of years. It only mention day. A day and a night will only make one whole "day".

There are words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for a "year" or "thousand years", so why didn't the Genesis used it instead of "day"?

I know that you're relying on one of the passages from Peter, but that seem more like metaphor than to be taken literally what Peter says.

 

[AxisMundi]

As soon as the ball leaves your hand, aside from the impulse/force your hand gives it, the ball is accelerating -- downward. (i.e., decelerating).

What's happening with the universe right now is as if, to borrow your analogy, the ball left your hand and accelerated upwards.

"Deceleration" is not really a word, there's just acceleration in a particular direction... a ball leaving your hand in gravity is (even while it's travelling +y) accelerating towards -y.

Ok then, you agree with the idea that the universe may "stop accelorating", and "fall back down" towards the center of matter/energy.

 

[AxisMundi]

The Genesis doesn't mention epoch or thousands of years. It only mention day. A day and a night will only make one whole "day".

There are words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for a "year" or "thousand years", so why didn't the Genesis used it instead of "day"?

I know that you're relying on one of the passages from Peter, but that seem more like metaphor than to be taken literally what Peter says.

What bowman and others who try and wiggle out of the day factor refuse to see is that, whether there are a few days between "creation" and human beings, or 13 billion years plus, the biblical timeline according to generations is STILL wrong as it gives the age of man at around 6,000 years old.

And it STILL ignores Minimal Population Viability as well.

And this also places the Great Flood myth around 2,200 BCE. We have existing written records from civilizations, including from the Middle East, far, far older, and none mention so much as a passing damp.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ok then, you agree with the idea that the universe may "stop accelorating", and "fall back down" towards the center of matter/energy.

No, you misunderstand.

From the moment the ball leaves your hand it is accelerating downward. That's the equivalent of the universe accelerating "inward."

The ball is never accelerating upward once it leaves your hand; its velocity is upward but its acceleration is downward.

The universe is not behaving in that way: like I said, to use your analogy on the universe, the BBE would be the "toss" of the ball, but from that moment on even though the velocity of the universe would be outward it would already be accelerating inward from the very beginning, just like the ball is already accelerating downward even as it travels upward. (At least, if it behaved like the ball you describe).

No, the universe's velocity is outward -- and its acceleration is outward.

Going back to the analogy, it's as if you were to release a ball and instead of slowing down, reaching a height and then accelerating to the ground, it actually accelerates in the other direction altogether and only goes away from you faster and faster.

 

[Bowman]

The Genesis doesn't mention epoch or thousands of years. It only mention day. A day and a night will only make one whole "day".

Each opoch of time is earmarked with 'the evening, and the morning'...and considering that the Hebrew day was from evening to evening, this then makes for 12 hrs...not 24 hrs...again signifying something other than a regular day..

There are words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek for a "year" or "thousand years", so why didn't the Genesis used it instead of "day"?

Only circa 3K words existed in the classic Hebrew vocab (not including proper names).

There was no other word that represented a very large period of time.

I know that you're relying on one of the passages from Peter, but that seem more like metaphor than to be taken literally what Peter says.

No.

I am not.

 

[gnostic]

Only circa 3K words existed in the classic Hebrew vocab (not including proper names).

There was no other word that represented a very large period of time.

Are you talking about "epoch"?

Or are you referring to "years" or "a thousand of years"?

Because I was referring to the later, which do exist in Hebrew, even if the former (epoch) may not exist.

Instead of using "day", the Genesis could have used a x-number of years. And the Genesis 1 doesn't.

Genesis used an "evening" and a "morning", followed by 1st day, or 2nd day, etc, right up the 6th day. And apart from the sun and moon marking the seasons for each year (4th day), it doesn't epoch number of years. So where are you getting this notion that many years have passed instead of a day.

No.

I am not.

So you don't use 2 Peter 3.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Well, then you are the 1st Christian, I know of that don't use this line of thinking then, to put more time (years) in Genesis 1, then the Genesis have stated. Then I'll apologise that you are not the one.

And yet, it still don't answer where you get the epoch from.

How many think epoch of years do you think has passed before God created Adam, if you don't think 6000 years for the creation of the known world? Are you saying there were animals and humans before the estimated time of the Bible?

 

[David M]

MDNA traces back to Eve, the first female.

Y chromosomal traces back to Noah, the last male.

So Adam left no male descendants and Noah was not a descendant of Adam? lol.

Nuclear DNA shows that there are no ancestors linked to Homo Sapines Sapiens.

Evidence?

 

[Bowman]

Are you talking about "epoch"?

Or are you referring to "years" or "a thousand of years"?

Because I was referring to the later, which do exist in Hebrew, even if the former (epoch) may not exist.

Instead of using "day", the Genesis could have used a x-number of years. And the Genesis 1 doesn't.

Genesis used an "evening" and a "morning", followed by 1st day, or 2nd day, etc, right up the 6th day. And apart from the sun and moon marking the seasons for each year (4th day), it doesn't epoch number of years. So where are you getting this notion that many years have passed instead of a day.

The Hebrew word yawm can easily mean an epoch of time.

As we know, an epoch is a very large sequential time period, of which, Genesis clearly shows a numbered sequence.

So you don't use 2 Peter 3.

No.

 

[Bowman]

Well, then you are the 1st Christian, I know of that don't use this line of thinking then, to put more time (years) in Genesis 1, then the Genesis have stated. Then I'll apologise that you are not the one.

I'm a 'Day-age', old earth creationist.

Circa 50% of Christians are old earthers...

And yet, it still don't answer where you get the epoch from.

First, you need to define the Hebrew term for 'day'.

Next you need to see how it is used.

Clearly, it is used as epochs of time in Genesis 1.

How many think epoch of years do you think has passed before God created Adam, if you don't think 6000 years for the creation of the known world? Are you saying there were animals and humans before the estimated time of the Bible?

Each 'day' in Genesis is millions to billions of years in duration, brother.

 

[Bowman]

So Adam left no male descendants and Noah was not a descendant of Adam? lol.

We are all descendents from Adam.

Eve was the first clone.

 

[Bowman]

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.

Another website lacking references.

Fact is, the spread for the first female homo sapien sapien does indeed span and overlap what we would predict from the Holy Bible.

Not the millions of years as first thought by naturalists with a model that needed correcting by orders of magnitude.

The Biblical model has always predicted the rise of man in the thousands of years.

 

[gnostic]

Each 'day' in Genesis is millions to billions of years in duration, brother.

So you are trying to tell me that for 4 million years or 4 billion years, we had light to distinguish night from daylight, beginning on the 1st day, but we had no Sun nor Moon until 4 millions or 4 billion years later, on the Genesis' 4th day.

Can you prove this assertion of yours to be scientifically true?

Do you realise your interpretation of day and assertion of day=epoch of either million or billion of year, is scientifically and astronomically impossible? Don't you think that it is even more ridiculous than literal interpretation of Genesis 1?

Are you saying that there were no sun or moon or stars for 4 million or 4 billion years, bowman?