Still in the Dark Ages

[olofscience 422]

42 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You need a citation for how astrophysicists are saying the opposite of what the Bible says?  Because that's what I meant.

I was associating the photon epoch with "the beginning."  So in that sense it's the opposite since Scripture says He created the Heavens and the Earth, then He created light.

But then again, maybe it's not really the opposite.  Was there light prior to the photon epoch?  Maybe, but it wouldn't have been as transparent, and differ from our contemporary understanding of light.

Bottom line is that the Bible is not a science book.  It's long enough as it is without explaining everything in planck time.

It effectively conveyed its intended message in a manner that was accessible and comprehensible to the people of that era. Basically that God did it.

Basically after the Planck epoch, the fundamental forces started decoupling. Before decoupling of the electroweak force, photons could not exist independently. But quarks could, so that already disproves that light was the first thing in the universe. W and Z bosons, as well as gluons also formed before photons could.

The universe was then just opaque plasma, and doesn't really become transparent to light until about 370,000 years after the Big Bang.

3 million years after the Big Bang, the universe went dark - and stayed dark (in visible wavelengths) for almost 200 million years until the first stars started forming.

 

So the suggestion that the Bible is "simplified" for its intended audience is laughable, being "simplified" means there was access to the actual truth in the first place. But Genesis didn't say "there were quarks and W and Z bosons, then light, then millions of years of darkness, then light again" because face it, the authors of Genesis didn't know anything about the actual beginning.

Edited July 18, 2023 by olofscience

[billvon 2,402]

46 minutes ago, Coreece said:

But then again, maybe it's not really the opposite.  Was there light prior to the photon epoch?  Maybe, but it wouldn't have been as transparent, and differ from our contemporary understanding of light.

There was definitely light prior to the formation of the Earth.  Again, per Genesis 1:

-There's the Earth which has been there from before Genesis, but only water - no land.
-Then light is created.
-Then space (the "firmament") is created.
-Then dry land.
-Then grasses, plants and trees.
-Then the sun, moon and stars.
-Then birds and fish.
-Then land animals.
-Then man.

It is interesting to compare this to Genesis 2, in which the order is different.  It starts at the "creation of dry land" step from Genesis 1, then proceeds:

-Dry land
-Then a mist to water the dry land and make it moist
-Then man is created.
-Then trees, and the Garden of Eden.
-Then a big river.
-Then all the land animals and birds.
-Then woman.

[jakee 1,257]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

You need a citation for how astrophysicists are saying the opposite of what the Bible says?  Because that's what I meant.

Maybe actually say that next time then? You were directly replying to this statement "What Genesis is missing is good science." with the comment "Hmmm, that's pretty much the opposite of what most astrophysicists are saying today." 

Can you see what people are gonna think you mean?

Quote

Bottom line is that the Bible is not a science book.  It's long enough as it is without explaining everything in planck time.

I really don't think you need to bring up planck time to see the problem with the statement that God created the heavens and the earth*... and then light. Seems a bit redundant.

 

* And water too, by the way. Before there was light. But yeah, planck and photons. Sure.

Edited July 18, 2023 by jakee

[riggerrob 558]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

There was definitely light prior to the formation of the Earth.  Again, per Genesis 1:

-There's the Earth which has been there from before Genesis, but only water - no land.
-Then light is created.
-Then space (the "firmament") is created.
-Then dry land.
-Then grasses, plants and trees.
-Then the sun, moon and stars.
-Then birds and fish.
-Then land animals.
-Then man.

It is interesting to compare this to Genesis 2, in which the order is different.  It starts at the "creation of dry land" step from Genesis 1, then proceeds:

-Dry land
-Then a mist to water the dry land and make it moist
-Then man is created.
-Then trees, and the Garden of Eden.
-Then a big river.
-Then all the land animals and birds.
-Then woman.

"Religion or science? What is your best guess?" is the title of a sermon that I wrote a while back for a Unitarian/Universalist Church. The book of Genesis was a "best guess" based upon early Jews' limited understanding of physics, history, cosmology, etc. Fast forward to modern quantum physics and I remain cynical. My brain only grew as far as the Newtonian Physics needed to fix and fly airplanes, parachutes, kayaks, etc. I understand that Newtonian Physics are not enough to explain the inner workings of atoms.

I also predict that some of current Quantum Physics will be laughed at 50 years in the future because current scientific thinking is still only a "best guess."

On another note, when trying to determine whether light came before water, etc. in the book of Genesis, remember basic Newtonian Physics says that solids, liquids, gases and plasma (aka, light) are based upon the same materials/elements, just at different energy levels (aka. excitation levels). There is a logical progression from solid to liquid to gas to plasma.

Finally, my suspicion is that the Big Bang Theory is just a simplified and shortened explanation for vast waves of expansion and contraction. These waves are far too huge for the human mind to comprehend. ... so we read simplified explanations in the book of Genesis or the Big Band Theory.  I also suspect that the Big Bang Theory was written to passify the Christian Bible-Thumpers who needed a version of science that supports the Holy Bible. 

Edited July 18, 2023 by riggerrob

[riggerrob 558]

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

No, if anything that seed was planted by the 80s videos I was posting in the music video thread that day and something I read in L.A times that I posted here about a year ago:

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens

"She has helped hundreds of teens transition. But she has also come to believe that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media and that some clinicians are failing to subject minors to rigorous mental health evaluations before recommending hormones or surgeries. “I think it’s gone too far. . ."

 

Edit

Actually no, I remember now.  It was from this Bill Maher Segment that referenced that article:

 

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

Well spoken!

When two or more social critics say essentially the same thing ... then maybe ... just maybe ... they speak the truth.

Sorry, but I spent last week at a reunion of military veterans (Operation Pegasus Jump 2023 at Campbell River Skydive Center) and military veterans tend to live on the conservative side of politics, religion, sexuality, etc. The attitude spoken most often was "I don't care who you want to %$#@! just don't shove your sexual preferences down my throat."

When I said "I have not need-to-know about your sexuality until you invite me into your bed." was greeted with smiles and nods.

[billvon 2,402]

2 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

"Religion or science? What is your best guess?" is the title of a sermon that I wrote a while back for a Unitarian/Universalist Church. The book of Genesis was a "best guess" based upon early Jews' limited understanding of physics, history, cosmology, etc.

I would note that it is actually two books.  The first one - Genesis 1 and the first sentence of Genesis 2 - was written by an author now referred to as the Priestly author.  He uses verses instead of prose, uses the term "Elohim" for God, and has a story that is very similar to the Egyptian creation myth (land arising from the waters, based on the flooding of the Nile.)

Genesis 2 was written by the Jahwist author.  He uses regular prose, uses the term "Yaweh" for God, and has a creation story that is much closer to the Babylonian creation myth (man from Earth, many references to rivers.)

So not really suprising that they are different.

Quote

On another note, when trying to determine whether light came before water, etc. in the book of Genesis, remember basic Newtonian Physics says that solids, liquids, gases and plasma (aka, light)

Plasma is matter that is so hot that electrons no longer "orbit" their nucleus, but instead drift around separately.  Light is EM radiation carried by photons.

[gowlerk 1,915]

Good lord! It's "The Bible". Either you believe in it with all its conflicting proclamations or you don't. What the Hell, you can even choose to believe in or interpret all or parts of it anyway you choose. At least you can do those things with the level of freedom we currently enjoy in the western world at this moment in history. Likely none of us will be burnt at the stake or tortured to death for apostasy like in some Islamic parts of the world. 

As far as understanding the nature of existence goes everyone of us including the leading theoretical physicists can only speculate. And I firmly believe that fact will never change over whatever length of time our species lasts for. But we sure will try anyway. 

[gowlerk 1,915]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Plasma is matter that is so hot that electrons no longer "orbit" their nucleus, but instead drift around separately.

Just out of curiosity do those nuclei also break down into individual quarks in a plasma or does the strong force still hold them together? 

[billvon 2,402]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Just out of curiosity do those nuclei also break down into individual quarks in a plasma or does the strong force still hold them together? 

Most plasmas are the mundane free-electron-and-ion sort.  There is something called a quark-gluon plasma that can happen under insanely high temperatures and densities.  About the only way we see them on Earth is when you collide very heavy particles at relativistic speeds inside an accelerator.

[gowlerk 1,915]

21 minutes ago, billvon said:

Most plasmas are the mundane free-electron-and-ion sort.  There is something called a quark-gluon plasma that can happen under insanely high temperatures and densities.  About the only way we see them on Earth is when you collide very heavy particles at relativistic speeds inside an accelerator.

Thanks. Googling that term brought me to a somewhat compressible page at the CERN website.

https://home.cern/science/physics/heavy-ions-and-quark-gluon-plasma

 

[kallend 1,632]

3 hours ago, riggerrob said:

"Religion or science? What is your best guess?" is the title of a sermon that I wrote a while back for a Unitarian/Universalist Church. The book of Genesis was a "best guess" based upon early Jews' limited understanding of physics, history, cosmology, etc. Fast forward to modern quantum physics and I remain cynical. My brain only grew as far as the Newtonian Physics needed to fix and fly airplanes, parachutes, kayaks, etc. I understand that Newtonian Physics are not enough to explain the inner workings of atoms.

I also predict that some of current Quantum Physics will be laughed at 50 years in the future because current scientific thinking is still only a "best guess."

On another note, when trying to determine whether light came before water, etc. in the book of Genesis, remember basic Newtonian Physics says that solids, liquids, gases and plasma (aka, light) are based upon the same materials/elements, just at different energy levels (aka. excitation levels). There is a logical progression from solid to liquid to gas to plasma.

Finally, my suspicion is that the Big Bang Theory is just a simplified and shortened explanation for vast waves of expansion and contraction. These waves are far too huge for the human mind to comprehend. ... so we read simplified explanations in the book of Genesis or the Big Band Theory.  I also suspect that the Big Bang Theory was written to passify the Christian Bible-Thumpers who needed a version of science that supports the Holy Bible. 

Writing as a retired physics professor, I suggest you don't give up your day job to practice physics.

 

No doubt there is stuff to be refined, and new stuff to be discovered, but no way are we going to find that the Earth (including water) existed before photons (which, incidentally, are not plasma).

[Coreece 190]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

You need a citation for how astrophysicists are saying the opposite of what the Bible says?  Because that's what I meant.

Maybe actually say that next time then? You were directly replying to this statement "What Genesis is missing is good science." with the comment "Hmmm, that's pretty much the opposite of what most astrophysicists are saying today." 

Can you see what people are gonna think you mean?

ya, but it was an after thought and didn't feel like editing it.  I was caught up in the moment, what can I say?
Plus, I offered a tiny bit more context than what you quoted, and felt that it might be enough to figure out that that's not what I was talking about if you really wanted to, but I don't blame you.  Totally my bad.

 

9 hours ago, jakee said:

Quote

Bottom line is that the Bible is not a science book.  It's long enough as it is without explaining everything in planck time.

I really don't think you need to bring up planck time to see the problem with the statement that God created the heavens and the earth*... and then light. Seems a bit redundant.

Truth be told, I was kind of projecting when i said "what else are you missing?"  It's been awhile since I revisited Genesis, and in the back of my mind I too felt that light came first.  After all, from a human perspective you kinda want to see what you're creating.  Plus, when reading, you're actually visualizing it, so light is sort of a given.

I didn't really think about it until Jerry asked the question about light in the beginning, and it was immediately brought to my memory that it actually says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

 

9 hours ago, jakee said:

* And water too, by the way. Before there was light. But yeah, planck and photons. Sure.

I just found that more interesting.

But again, try to understand that I view biblical texts more as poetry rather than a science book explicitly trying to describe "how" and in a precise chronology.

Scripture is filled with instances admonishing human pride and arrogance, even including instances where people themselves felt in their heart that They were God.   We see even today how self centered Humans are, let alone during biblical times.

So from a more poetic stance, I see Genesis as saying, look, God did it.  He created the Heavens and the Earth.  It's all here, and than Bam, I'm the one that turned on the lights, and  If fact, I AM light.  So don't forget it.   In my mind, it's a powerful way to make the point, especially since there is lots of language about light in general (both literally and metaphorically) so the chronology doesn't matter as much.

 

[kallend 1,632]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

 

But again, try to understand that I view biblical texts more as poetry rather than a science book explicitly trying to describe "how" and in a precise chronology.

 

 

It has some good life lessons (along with some that are just plain nasty as in Leviticus), but whether you call it poetry, fantasy, or ancient sci-fi, it's still full of contradictions, errors and just plain ol' nonsense.

[olofscience 422]

34 minutes ago, kallend said:

It has some good life lessons (along with some that are just plain nasty as in Leviticus), but whether you call it poetry, fantasy, or ancient sci-fi, it's still full of contradictions, errors and just plain ol' nonsense.

And incest, lots of sex, and shocking violence.

I was in my early teens when I decided to try to read the bible like a novel - man, that was a shocker.

Combine that with christian children being taught Jesus' death in very gruesome, graphic detail. It's messed up, that Utah board was right to ban it from schools.

[Stumpy 256]

32 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And incest, lots of sex, and shocking violence.

I was in my early teens when I decided to try to read the bible like a novel - man, that was a shocker.

Combine that with christian children being taught Jesus' death in very gruesome, graphic detail. It's messed up, that Utah board was right to ban it from schools.

My son had some idiot teacher show them a video about the easter myth with fairly graphic representations of crucifixion etc at the age of about 5 (non-religious school). He had nightmares for weeks. Some choice words were had with said teacher - She was christian herself but hadn't actually watched the video prior.

[jakee 1,257]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

But again, try to understand that I view biblical texts more as poetry rather than a science book explicitly trying to describe "how" and in a precise chronology.

The bit I don’t understand is how it goes from sections that some guys just made up because it sounds good to sections that are the absolute and definitive truth about human existence. I’m not really sure how you figure out which is which.

[olofscience 422]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

I’m not really sure how you figure out which is which.

That's easy, the stuff they like.

 

If it's poetry, most of the bible sucks. Only 1 book that I know of would really count as poetry - the Book of Psalms. All of the other books are just prose about gruesome violence and sex.

[kallend 1,632]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

That's easy, the stuff they like.

 

If it's poetry, most of the bible sucks. Only 1 book that I know of would really count as poetry - the Book of Psalms. All of the other books are just prose about gruesome violence and sex.

Ecclesiastes is pretty good.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,345]

On 7/18/2023 at 1:14 PM, riggerrob said:

"Religion or science? What is your best guess?" is the title of a sermon that I wrote a while back for a Unitarian/Universalist Church. The book of Genesis was a "best guess" based upon early Jews' limited understanding of physics, history, cosmology, etc. Fast forward to modern quantum physics and I remain cynical. My brain only grew as far as the Newtonian Physics needed to fix and fly airplanes, parachutes, kayaks, etc. I understand that Newtonian Physics are not enough to explain the inner workings of atoms.

I also predict that some of current Quantum Physics will be laughed at 50 years in the future because current scientific thinking is still only a "best guess...

Well, I would call Genesis the 'best bullshit' rather than 'best guess'.
It's just the story that was told the most times that it became a 'true and real' story to the people telling & retelling it.

Kinda funny how each independent society has it's own creation myth.
And each of them claims that "God told us this is what happened."

So either God decided to tell different people different stories to mess with everyone...
Or he has Dementia and couldn't keep his stories straight each time he told them.

Newtonian physics is an approximation, not a guess. It's perfectly accurate and useable to a pretty decent degree of precision.
NASA uses it for most of the rockets sent into space.

When a greater degree of precision is needed, relativity is brought in.
GPS couldn't be made to work properly until relativity was factored in. The speed of the satellites and the precision the clocks need require relativistic corrections for the nav data to be accurate.

Some of quantum will likely be replaced with more accurate understanding, but basic quantum is pretty solid. Refinement, not replacement.
Of course, it's entirely possible a new field will be discovered that supplants quantum, just as relativity did with Newton.

[lippy 773]

Don't most ~2000-year-old religions just boil down to a set of rules that were put in place to have a somewhat functioning society once relative strangers started living together in communities?  If you wanna keep the people in line and stop chaos in the streets, tell them that killing your neighbor is bad, because if you do God is going to send you to be tortured for eternity!  I like to think that rule was implemented the day after somebody killed the only guy in town who knew how to start a fire.  

[JoeWeber 2,306]

6 minutes ago, lippy said:

Don't most ~2000-year-old religions just boil down to a set of rules that were put in place to have a somewhat functioning society once relative strangers started living together in communities?  If you wanna keep the people in line and stop chaos in the streets, tell them that killing your neighbor is bad, because if you do God is going to send you to be tortured for eternity!  I like to think that rule was implemented the day after somebody killed the only guy in town who knew how to start a fire.  

They meant don't kill your next door neighbor but the guy's in the next town, well, fuck 'em.

[gowlerk 1,915]

3 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

They meant don't kill your next door neighbor but the guy's in the next town, well, fuck 'em.

More to the point, fuck ‘em in the name of God.

[JerryBaumchen 1,049]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

More to the point, fuck ‘em in the name of God.

Hi Ken,

Well,  when they say, 'Oh, my god,' isn't that what we are doing?

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,345]

15 hours ago, lippy said:

Don't most ~2000-year-old religions just boil down to a set of rules that were put in place to have a somewhat functioning society once relative strangers started living together in communities?  If you wanna keep the people in line and stop chaos in the streets, tell them that killing your neighbor is bad, because if you do God is going to send you to be tortured for eternity!  I like to think that rule was implemented the day after somebody killed the only guy in town who knew how to start a fire.  

Pretty much.  

Dietary rules look VERY suspiciously like 'food safety' from a time before they knew what that was.
Take pork for example. Unless cooked thoroughly, it can be pretty dangerous.

So the people who are smart say "Don't eat pork."

But hungry people say "Pork chops taste good. Bacon tastes good. Why can't we eat it?"

And the smart people say "Because God doesn't want you to."

Kind of hard to argue with God. Kind hard to blame the priests for just 'passing on what God told them to tell you.'
And, of course, the people who 'defy God' and eat the pork sometimes die.

It's the same with a lot of the other stuff. Things that cost the individual, yet benefit society.
The societies that implemented that sort of stuff did better than the ones that didn't, reinforcing the ideas.

There's some speculation among sociologists that this sort of thing, where the people more likely to believe in God and obey the priests had better chances of survival, and that 'willingness to believe' (also called 'gullibility') actually turned into a survival trait and has evolved into people. Had this discussion a while back, but one of the 'hardcore believers' did a pretty good job throwing it off track with distraction and other bullshit.

[ryoder 1,390]

19 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Pretty much.  

Dietary rules look VERY suspiciously like 'food safety' from a time before they knew what that was.
Take pork for example. Unless cooked thoroughly, it can be pretty dangerous.

So the people who are smart say "Don't eat pork."

But hungry people say "Pork chops taste good. Bacon tastes good. Why can't we eat it?"
 

"Hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'd never know 'cause I wouldn't eat the filthy motherfucker. Pigs sleep and root in shit. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

;-)