What is life?

[Runewolf1973]

Well, you're right that the Big Bang theory was not intended to explain how the Big Bang got its start, and you're right that it was intended to show that all matter of the universe emanated from a single point and resulted in this expanding universe we exist in today. I think Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist described the science's understanding of what we actually understand about the Big Bang. He said,

"Earlier than 10^-36 seconds, we simply don't understand the nature of the universe. The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we're a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don't even know if the word "before" even makes sense! At incredibly tiny scales (and I'm talking tinier than the tiniest thing you could possible imagine), the quantum nature of reality rears its ugly head at full strength, rendering our neat, orderly, friendly spacetime into a broken jungle gym of loops and tangles and rusty spikes. Notions of intervals in time or space don't really apply at those scales. Who knows what's going on?

There are, of course, some ideas out there — models that attempt to describe what "ignited" or "seeded" the Big Bang, but at this stage, they're pure speculation."
(http://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html)

The first thing that emanated from the Big Bang was light. Perhaps not light of the visible spectrum, but it was light. I believe if one were to investigate this, they would find that to be the consensus among all scientists advocating the Big Bang theory. While there are ideas (theories) and models that some have provided to explain the cause of the big bang, and all of it is pure speculation.

However, I've got a tiny little book, written by some ancient goat herder, stating that in the beginning God said, "let there be light". And by God there was light. Boom. So here we have perhaps the earliest known untested theory concerning the origin of the universe, and it just so happened to be correct. And this goat herder with his archaic ideas even has a viable cause for why the Big Bang happened. Honestly, it puts modern science to shame.

Yes there is a similarity. What doesn't make sense are the timelines. What is a "day" to a God?

 

[Sonofason]

I know how time consuming it can be to keep up to the the posts. Not to worry.


Except, I was really only talking about geology and astronomy. Genesis doesn't use those terms, of course, as those sciences clearly did not exist in the Bronze Age, but the formation of the stars, Sun, Moon, and Earth, can only be understood though modern study. Genesis has nothing to offer in that regard except myth.

And, by the way, do you know why the planets are not given mention in the creation account? It is because the planets figured prominently in Canaanite religion and the priestly authors of Genesis wanted to avoid any mention of them. Interesting, eh? At least that is one hypothesis. Had you ever wondered why the planets never received mention in Genesis? I had always wondered about that, and about the absence of dinosaurs brought before Adam.

Oh, and there was an Adam in Canaanite mythology as well. I was astounded to learn that. He did battle against the serpent in the garden of the gods. The serpent was trying to destroy the Tree of Life. That Tree provided the fruit that gave the gods their immortality. I’d always wondered why God had placed such an important food in the garden if he didn’t want Adam to consume it? Why give it such a prominent place? In the Canaanite story, however, Adam is himself a god and more or less sacrifices himself to save the Tree of Life. During this selfless act he is bitten, poisoned, and nearly dies. The poison zaps him of his immortality, but the Tree at least is saved. As a reward El makes Adam a wife and allows them to live the rest of their days in the garden where Adam takes the role of grounds keeper. His wife is not named in the account, perhaps because that part of the story has been lost. I am not certain, but I think Adam and his wife are the first people in the world. This all sheds new light on the Garden of Eden story and tells us we are the descendants of the gods.

Well, the very first verse of the Bible says,

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1).

In Hebrews 1, verse 1 &2 we read:
"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

Later in Hebrews 11:3 e read"
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

What are worlds, if not other planets?
By the way, I tend to use the KJV of the Bible.

We have to understand that the planets were not easily visible to early man, and God had left the responsibility of naming everything to man. I personally see no reason to name things you don't know exist. But apparently the author of Hebrews knew that other worlds existed. Also, I do believe that if you were to investigate further, you would find that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible as well. The question would be, what would be the name used to represent them? Surely dinosaur is a relatively new term. So in the Bible, what was Leviathan? Look what Job had to say:

1Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

33Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

34He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes there is a similarity. What doesn't make sense are the timelines. What is a "day" to a God?

Well, the Bible answers that question in verse 5 of Genesis chapter 1:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."
There is a lot of science that I believe is false science. I believe that today's science is becoming more of a religion than I'm sure you would like to admit. There are some ideas that have been pushed on to us that have a lot invested in them. It's money, it's reputation, it's manipulation.

The science will say look over there at that rock. It is 5 million years old. Okay, now look at all the carbon 14 that remains in those rocks over there. Surely that rock must be 500 million years old because that first rock we told you is 5 million years old is just 5 million years old. Well, how do you know that rock was 5 million years old? Well because those rocks over there are 500 million years old. Science is not trustworthy, and everyone is believing everything they say without verification. And most of us wouldn't have a clue if they were telling the truth anyhow. It's not like we verify the supposed facts for ourselves. No I prefer reason over blind faith in science. And a belief in God is very reasonable. Especially when you do so, and you receive personal experiential evidence from this God simply because you put a little faith in Him.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Well, the Bible answers that question in verse 5 of Genesis chapter 1:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."
There is a lot of science that I believe is false science. I believe that today's science is becoming more of a religion than I'm sure you would like to admit. There are some ideas that have been pushed on to us that have a lot invested in them. It's money, it's reputation, it's manipulation.

The science will say look over there at that rock. It is 5 million years old. Okay, now look at all the carbon 14 that remains in those rocks over there. Surely that rock must be 500 million years old because that first rock we told you is 5 million years old is just 5 million years old. Well, how do you know that rock was 5 million years old? Well because those rocks over there are 500 million years old. Science is not trustworthy, and everyone is believing everything they say without verification. And most of us wouldn't have a clue if they were telling the truth anyhow. It's not like we verify the supposed facts for ourselves. No I prefer reason over blind faith in science. And a belief in God is very reasonable. Especially when you do so, and you receive personal experiential evidence from this God simply because you put a little faith in Him.

To each their own I guess. I don't believe in gods.

 

[Sonofason]

To each their own I guess. I don't believe in gods.

I only believe in one.
I would like to see a couple of those timeline issues you mentioned. Perhaps, I have a few thoughts on those issues that could help you work them out. Not that I have all the answers. Surely I don't. But we do see things from a somewhat different perspective, and oftentimes misunderstandings are simply a matter of one's perspective.

What is north of the north pole? Does north end at the north pole? Some say yes. But isn't the star Polaris north of the north pole?

 

[Marsh]

I'll have to leave the dinosaurs for later. Getting a bit late to get into that.

We have to understand that the planets were not easily visible to early man, and God had left the responsibility of naming everything to man. I personally see no reason to name things you don't know exist.

Have you not seen the planets yourself Sonofason? Venus is far brighter than any star and is only rivaled by the Moon in the night sky. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are very bright as well and figured prominently in Babylonian astrology, that by this time (I am quite sure), had spread to the Canaanites. Mercury was difficult to see, certainly, but not impossible and it was known. No, the Hebrews knew the planets, that is a certainty. The thing is the planets were gods to the Canaanites, and to name them in Genesis would necessitate placing the names of the Canaanite gods in holy scripture. For this reason they were not acknowledged in the creation account.

Regarding the Sun and Moon, they were not named either. Did you notice that? The Sun was referred to only as the "greater light" and the Moon as the "lesser light". The Hebrew people had names for the Sun and Moon, but again, these were probably the same names as used by the Canaanites, and most certainly they were gods in the Canaanite pantheon.

But apparently the author of Hebrews knew that other worlds existed.

This is totally new to me. What worlds did they know and where are these worlds mentioned?

 

[Sonofason]

I'll have to leave the dinosaurs for later. Getting a bit late to get into that.


Have you not seen the planets yourself Sonofason? Venus is far brighter than any star and is only rivaled by the Moon in the night sky. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are very bright as well and figured prominently in Babylonian astrology, that by this time (I am quite sure), had spread to the Canaanites. Mercury was difficult to see, certainly, but not impossible and it was known. No, the Hebrews knew the planets, that is a certainty. The thing is the planets were gods to the Canaanites, and to name them in Genesis would necessitate placing the names of the Canaanite gods in holy scripture. For this reason they were not acknowledged in the creation account.

Regarding the Sun and Moon, they were not named either. Did you notice that? The Sun was referred to only as the "greater light" and the Moon as the "lesser light". The Hebrew people had names for the Sun and Moon, but again, these were probably the same names as used by the Canaanites, and most certainly they were gods in the Canaanite pantheon.


This is totally new to me. What worlds did they know and where are these worlds mentioned?

Well, as I said, the fact that other worlds existed was mentioned in Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 11. The names of those worlds were not mentioned. But then the name of every bird or fish was not mentioned either. Does that mean that birds and fish are not mentioned in the Bible. When discussing the creation, it is not important what the names are, but that they are. All worlds were created by God. Each star, every planet, every atom, were all created by God.

And you're right...it's getting late...so I suppose we can continue our conversation another day.

 

[Marsh]

What is north of the north pole? Does north end at the north pole? Some say yes. But isn't the star Polaris north of the north pole?

I am not sure why you would ask this question, unless you lack basic knowledge of the world and its place in the cosmos? Am I misunderstanding you? Polaris is roughly aligned with Earth's north axis. So if you extended an imaginary line from the axis it would, 433 light years from Earth, come close to intersecting the pole star. There are billions of stars surrounding Earth in every direction, some much closer than Polaris. I don't understand what you mean by asking "Does north end at the north pole?"

 

[Sonofason]

I am not sure why you would ask this question, unless you lack basic knowledge of the world and its place in the cosmos? Am I misunderstanding you? Polaris is roughly aligned with Earth's north axis. So if you extended an imaginary line from the axis it would, 433 light years from Earth, come close to intersecting the pole star. There are billions of stars surrounding Earth in every direction, some much closer than Polaris. I don't understand what you mean by asking "Does north end at the north pole?"

Its not a trick question. I was merely giving an example of how different people often have different perspectives with regard to their own personal perceptions of what a writer's intent was when he wrote what he wrote.

In this comment of yours you have jumped to a conclusion that I must "lack basic knowledge of the world and its place in the cosmos", simply because you did not understand the question that I asked you. It wasn't a difficult question. "What is north of the north pole?" Either there is something north of the north pole, or there is not. To be honest, it was a rhetorical question. I asked the question simply as an example to show how perspective can influence one's perception of things. If one were to look at my first question from the perspective of a traveler fixed to the surface of the earth, (you know, without wings, and without rockets), he might reach the north pole and discover he can go no further. From his perspective, his perception might be that north ends at the north pole. The moment he crosses the north pole, his compass would tell him to turn around. There would indeed be a point on the earth where he could go no further north. Well, for that traveler, from his perspective north ends at the north pole. He can go no further.

Perhaps I confused you by asking the second two questions. Perhaps you did not read the question from the perspective of a traveler on the earth who could go no further north while remaining on the earth. Perhaps you have the perception that it is absurd to think of north ending at the north pole. Perhaps you have the perception that it is absurd to think of north not ending at the north pole. And from your perspective, you would be right. But I am the one who asked the question, not you. So your perspective doesn't matter. If you want to answer the question accurately, you must view the question from my perspective. If you were a critical thinker, you might try asking a few question of me before jumping to the conclusion that I must somehow lack certain knowledge about the subject. Since I am alive, and right here having this conversation with you, that would have been easy to do.

Your response should have been, well, that depends. And then you could begin your inquiry as to my intent, perhaps without the unnecessary suggestion that I lack knowledge on the subject.

Polaris is a star we see in the northern sky. Another name for the star Polaris is the North Star. So, from the perspective of one standing on the earth, is Polaris north or south? If I am standing on the north pole, is Polaris north or south? Is the sky directly above the north pole north or south? If I am standing on the north pole, can I indeed go further north?

True north is defined as:
- the direction towards the north pole along the meridian of longitude which passes through the observer's position on the Earth.
http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/astronomical/astronomical-definitions

Direction is the information contained in the relative position of one point with respect to another point without the distance information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_(geometry)

But honestly, I have no reason to suggest that you lack a basic understanding of what direction is, because I understand that people view ideas and concepts from different perspectives.

So please, take a moment, get yourself a flat map of the universe, place the earth at its center, place yourself on the north pole, draw a line of direction along any meridian of longitude of the earth which passes through the observer's position (you) and the north pole (where you are currently standing), let the line of direction extend in both directions out into the universe, and please tell me if anything exists to the north of the north pole of the earth. And then our perspectives will match, and you will be in agreement with me, and I will feel less insulted.

 

[Marsh]

Its not a trick question. I was merely giving an example of how different people often have different perspectives with regard to their own personal perceptions of what a writer's intent was when he wrote what he wrote.

I concede that I jumped the gun. How that happened became more clear as I read your response.

In this comment of yours you have jumped to a conclusion that I must "lack basic knowledge of the world and its place in the cosmos", simply because you did not understand the question that I asked you.

Sorry. Though, my second question was, "Am I misunderstanding you?"

It wasn't a difficult question. "What is north of the north pole?" Either there is something north of the north pole, or there is not. To be honest, it was a rhetorical question.

I must apologize again as the discussion was with Runewolf and not myself, but I was drawn in by your question:

"What is north of the north pole? Does north end at the north pole? Some say yes. But isn't the star Polaris north of the north pole?"

I think I see your point. Depending on how you think about it there are two correct answers. I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.

... From his perspective, his perception might be that north ends at the north pole. The moment he crosses the north pole, his compass would tell him to turn around. There would indeed be a point on the earth where he could go no further north. Well, for that traveler, from his perspective north ends at the north pole. He can go no further.

Yes, I see your point, though you do realize there are two norths: magnetic north and true north? Magnetic north is about 12,000 km from the north pole and it is constantly on the move. My understanding is that if you could design the compass needle to move freely about an axis it would point down at the magnetic pole.

Perhaps I confused you by asking the second two questions. Perhaps you did not read the question from the perspective of a traveler on the earth who could go no further north while remaining on the earth.

You certainly did confuse me. I apologize again. I did not have in my mind the context you intended. You can travel further north at the magnetic pole, but not further north at true north (the northern axis of Earth), unless you can head upward, in the direction of Polaris.

 

[Marsh]

Well, as I said, the fact that other worlds existed was mentioned in Hebrews 1 and Hebrews 11.

I looked it up. I see no reference to other worlds. Does the King James have a different reading? Would you mind quoting the passages?

But then the name of every bird or fish was not mentioned either. Does that mean that birds and fish are not mentioned in the Bible. When discussing the creation, it is not important what the names are, but that they are.

You do understand though, why I made this point? The Sun and Moon are not named and the planets are not named. The author would not wish to give recognition to the Canaanite gods, which all of these heavenly bodies were.

All worlds were created by God. Each star, every planet, every atom, were all created by God.

Are the stars that are still forming being made by God?

 

[Sonofason]

I concede that I jumped the gun. How that happened became more clear as I read your response.


Sorry. Though, my second question was, "Am I misunderstanding you?"


I must apologize again as the discussion was with Runewolf and not myself, but I was drawn in by your question:

"What is north of the north pole? Does north end at the north pole? Some say yes. But isn't the star Polaris north of the north pole?"

I think I see your point. Depending on how you think about it there are two correct answers. I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question.


Yes, I see your point, though you do realize there are two norths: magnetic north and true north? Magnetic north is about 12,000 km from the north pole and it is constantly on the move. My understanding is that if you could design the compass needle to move freely about an axis it would point down at the magnetic pole.


You certainly did confuse me. I apologize again. I did not have in my mind the context you intended. You can travel further north at the magnetic pole, but not further north at true north (the northern axis of Earth), unless you can head upward, in the direction of Polaris.

All of your apologies are accepted of course. Communication between two people is often very difficult. It's not easy understanding another's true intent. And it takes a bit of time to be as clear as one needs to be in order to be understood.

 

[Sonofason]

I looked it up. I see no reference to other worlds. Does the King James have a different reading? Would you mind quoting the passages?

The only mention of other worlds that I know of is simply a very brief mention of other worlds. Here are the quotations from the King James version of the Bible:


"... By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that
what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. ..." (Hebrews 11:3)

"... Has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has appointed
heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds ..." (Hebrews 1:2)

... but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom that hath been hidden,
which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory ... (1 Corinthians 2:7)
http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=worlds

You do understand though, why I made this point? The Sun and Moon are not named and the planets are not named. The author would not wish to give recognition to the Canaanite gods, which all of these heavenly bodies were.

I am interested to know where you learned this. You may be right. I don't know.

Are the stars that are still forming being made by God?

I can give you my opinion.
The Bible tells us that Adam was a direct creation of God, and therefore he is considered to be a son of God. All of Adam's descendants are referred to as sons of men, and not direct creations. Every new human being is a creation of God because it is God who started the processes, and the forces which govern each new creature that comes into being.
The Bible tells us that God created all the herbs and plants and animals, yet those too, like the stars you refer to are still coming into existence via the process of evolution, a process I believe that was set into motion by God, with each creature, each new plant, and each star coming forth after it's kind, all governed by the forces and processes that God established.

 

[idav]

The Bible tells us that God created all the herbs and plants and animals, yet those too, like the stars you refer to are still coming into existence via the process of evolution, a process I believe that was set into motion by God, with each creature, each new plant, and each star coming forth after it's kind, all governed by the forces and processes that God established.

Thats great and all except all of life evolved from a single celled organism. All life has a common ancestor. So if god set it in motion then he started life with a single celled organism and stepped back from there.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I only believe in one.
I would like to see a couple of those timeline issues you mentioned. Perhaps, I have a few thoughts on those issues that could help you work them out. Not that I have all the answers. Surely I don't. But we do see things from a somewhat different perspective, and oftentimes misunderstandings are simply a matter of one's perspective.

What is north of the north pole? Does north end at the north pole? Some say yes. But isn't the star Polaris north of the north pole?

As long as you don't try to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, I'm fine with that. I've always kinda seen the Book of Genesis from the Bible as a metaphorical representation of the beginnings of the universe. It actually kinda makes sense. However, I also see "God" of the Bible not as a literal manlike being, but rather as a metaphorical force of nature.

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything." The Gospel of Thomas

You see, "God" is metaphorical for the Fundamental Forces of nature...electromagnetism....light...energy...matter.

 

[Sonofason]

Thats great and all except all of life evolved from a single celled organism. All life has a common ancestor. So if god set it in motion then he started life with a single celled organism and stepped back from there.

Please show me your evidence that all life evolved from one single celled organism, and does that organism exist today?

 

[Sonofason]

As long as you don't try to tell me that the Earth is only 6000 years old, I'm fine with that. I've always kinda seen the Book of Genesis from the Bible as a metaphorical representation of the beginnings of the universe. It actually kinda makes sense. However, I also see "God" of the Bible not as a literal manlike being, but rather as a metaphorical force of nature.

"I am the light that shines over all things, I am everything." The Gospel of Thomas

You see, "God" is metaphorical for the Fundamental Forces of nature...electromagnetism....light...energy...matter.

The Bible does not tell us the age of the earth. It is the interpretation and manipulation by men that have drawn such conclusions.

 

[ArtieE]

The fact is that we do not know exactly where life comes from. Every single instance of life that we know of has indeed come from former life. So we can't say that the premise that life comes from life can't always be true. It just may be true. And of course the Bible tells us that this is indeed the case, that a living God is the source of the life that we see in all living beings.

Except that if people hadn't decided to call some organisms alive life wouldn't exist. There is no such thing as "life". We have just made a list of things and say that organisms who can do those things are "alive". Are you confusing "consciousness" with "life"?

 

[ArtieE]

Did gravity cause it? Was it the weak force? What caused the Big Bang? You can I'm sure suggest various theories. I'll give you mine. God interacted with it, and it became something.

Why don't you just say "I don't know, so I'll just put in God as a placeholder until we find out?"

 

[ArtieE]

ArtieE, I was Not talking about what men say the Bible says, but what does the Bible really teach about the Earth. Earth is an oblate spheroid.
Directions of North, East, West and South are often referred to as corners of the Earth, but we know that is Not literal. NEWS about the farthest corners of Earth.

Doesn't Job 26:7 say: Earth hangs upon nothing ? ________ Some men taught elephants hold up Earth or a giant turtle, etc. but that does Not make the Bible as wrong, but men wrong.
Doesn't Job chapter 38 talk of the laws that govern the heavens including the constellations ?_________ -> Job 38:31-32; Job 9:7-9
Doesn't Job 22:14 talk of the circuit of the heavens ( vault ) which is Not flat.
The Hebrew word chug/hhug used there is Not meaning flat. We get in English the derived word ' rotund ' which does Not mean flat . The Rotunda is Not a flat building.
At any age men could look up and see the moon's shadow was Not flat.
So, saying the ends of the earth is Not falling off a flat disc, but as used at Acts of the Apostles 1:8 mentions carrying God's Word ( Bible ) extensively though out the Earth.

Maybe it's just simpler with a picture. If you want more pictures just search for "hebrew cosmology" in Google.