Possibly the most distant object known

Jul 18, 2011
A deep optical image of the afterglow of the gamma-ray burst GRB 090429B, arguably the most distant object known in the universe.

The most distant objects in the universe are also the oldest -- or at least that is how they appear to us, because their light has had to travel for billions of years to get here. They are also extraordinarily faint since they are so far away, and only in the last decade have astronomers been able to stretch their vision using the newest telescopes and clever techniques.

One such innovation occurred with the launch of the in 2004; it searches for bursts of gamma-ray emission, called GRBs. These flashes, thought to result from the especially spectacular deaths of , are the brightest events in the cosmos during their brief (only seconds-long) existence. But because they are so bright, they can be seen even when they are very, very far away.

A large international team of astronomers including CfA astronomers Edo Berger, Alicia Soderberg, and Ryan Foley used the Swift satellite to spot a GRB that rapid, ground-based followup studies determined was possibly the most known (but measurement uncertainties allow a few other candidates to compete for this title). The light from this object has been traveling towards us for about 13.2 billion years, or 96% of the . Since the universe is not static but expanding, today this object is much farther away than 13.2 billion light-years - more like about thirty billion light-years.

The scientists were unable to detect any faint trace of the putative galaxy in which this massive star once lived, helping to confirm the great distance of this GRB. Other important details in their new paper confirm that the object is similar to more nearby GRBs, and consequently that - even at this early stage of cosmic life - at least some stars already resembled stars in our local universe.

Explore further: Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Related Stories

In a Galaxy Far, Far Away...

Nov 06, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers have published the discovery of the farthest known object in the cosmos: a star that exploded when the universe was only 630 million years old -- only 4.6% of its current age. ...

Blast from the Past Gives Clues About Early Universe

Oct 28, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Astronomers using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope have gained tantalizing insights into the nature of the most distant object ever observed in the ...

New candidate for most distant object in universe

May 25, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A gamma-ray burst detected by NASA's Swift satellite in April 2009 has been newly unveiled as a candidate for the most distant object in the universe. At an estimated distance of 13.14 billion ...

The Case of the Missing Gamma-ray Bursts

Oct 23, 2008

Gamma-ray bursts are by far the brightest and most powerful explosions in the Universe, second only to the Big Bang itself. So it might seem a bit surprising that a group of them has gone missing.

Swift Satellite records early phase of gamma ray burst

Mar 02, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- UK astronomers, using a telescope aboard the NASA Swift Satellite, have captured information from the early stages of a gamma ray burst - the most violent and luminous explosions occurring ...

Recommended for you

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

19 hours ago

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

Jul 24, 2014

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

Jul 24, 2014

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

User comments : 204

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SexyArchaeologist
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
Awesome.
SDrapak
4.6 / 5 (19) Jul 18, 2011
You need to check the expiry date on your crack....
Dokudango
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2011
Man, Kevin, you holding out on us? I'd like to know where you get your dope.
J-n
4.6 / 5 (24) Jul 18, 2011

As NOT predicted by the Big Bang - which would have us believe that they should be completely different - much younger looking. So here is a contradiction again and nobody is getting too excited about it because it's become the norm now. Just about every other day the BB gets falsified and I think by now the cosmologists have resigned themselves to that fact. All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence.


Funny thing is that EVEN if you are right, that the big bang is wrong, and redshift is completely wrong, and all of that jazz, there is still PILES and PILES of evidence that your god did not create the universe as described in genesis, unless your god is a liar. Which would make it a piss poor god no?

You see even without using redshift one can calculate that some stars have been around for AT LEAST a few million more years than you suggest.

http://www.nrao.e...-p.shtml
Peteri
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2011
Creationalists like Kevin believe that 6000 years ago their god created the universe for mankind - all the galaxies and stars, the planets in our solar system, the earth's geology including its myriad fossils, and the huge diversity of life.

However, using this same logic, their deity could equally have been a bit mischievous and finished creating the universe just yesterday with everything ready-made and in place including our memories, books (e.g. the biblical texts), and everything else in the universe - all cunningly contrived to appear to have been created 6K years ago.

In fact, why stop at yesterday? Why not have creation completed just a minute ago, or just a fraction of a second ago? After all, this omnipotent god would only need to implant all the self-consistent life-memories right up to the present in everyones minds. This surely reveals the patent absurdity and the anthropocentric fallacy of having some deity create everything ready-made just a few thousand years ago!
AAhhzz01
2.9 / 5 (16) Jul 18, 2011
While I do have faith in a Creator, and the Chirstian one in fact. I also have doubts of the Accuracy of Genesis.

Look at it this way Kevin, if the Book of Genesis had started out stating "14 Billion Years ago"...Do you really think that it would have survived the Dark Ages in that form? Besides, everyone knows you have to explain things to your audiance in a way they can understand. Back then a 7 day limit would have been easier to convey than 14 Billion Years. Just a thought....
LKD
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
As NOT predicted by the Big Bang - which would have us believe that they should be completely different - much younger looking.


I don't believe there is a discernible difference between a supermasive after the big bang and one from the Milky way last week, save the luminosity.

If the gamma rays evidenced a core of heavy metals, then yes, something would be really wrong with the event. But I don't even think they can test for that if we are only getting a photon a day from this galaxy.
A1batross
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
Legitimate, non-creationist question:
How could an object get to be 13B LY away from where we are now in only about half a billion years?

Now, I'm not saying it STARTED where we are now, I'm just saying that if the speed of light limits velocity, how could any two objects be billions of LY apart when the Universe was only half a billion years old? Shouldn't the greatest distance between any two points end up being just less than the age of the Universe? That seems to be the case here - it's .96 of the age of the Universe away in LY - but how did it GET there to start sending the light HERE in only half a billion years?
J-n
5 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
How could an object get to be 13B LY away from where we are now in only about half a billion years?


Where did you get the 1/2 billion years number, i'm confused.
Tachyon
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2011
Remember that the BB expansion hypothesis has long been accepted by cosmologists in spite of both its internal contradictions and its contradictions with established physical laws, and has always needed exceptions to the rule for it to work.
J-n
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
Remember that the BB expansion hypothesis has long been accepted by cosmologists in spite of both its internal contradictions and its contradictions with established physical laws, and has always needed exceptions to the rule for it to work.


What is your theory as to how the universe was created?
ShotmanMaslo
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2011
Shouldn't the greatest distance between any two points end up being just less than the age of the Universe?


Expansion of space is not limited by speed of light. Speed of light only determines the observable universe from any point in such spacetime, but actual universe may be much larger, possibly infinite. Similar effect happens in black holes, where the black hole event horizon can be described as a spacetime that is receding into the black hole faster than the speed of light. In this, black hole singularity and big bang singularity are very similar. Redshift is also supposed to be present in things falling into a black hole, after all.

Take this with a grain of salt tough, I am no physicist.
Yellowdart
1.2 / 5 (12) Jul 18, 2011
You see even without using redshift one can calculate that some stars have been around for AT LEAST a few million more years than you suggest.


Redshift is like the Doppler Effect though. It's more of a measure of distance.

If you take a light bulb, in a dark hallway, turn it on, and begin to move it away from you, does the light stop traveling to you, simply because of distance? Nope. Would you stop receiving it? Only if it could move faster than the speed of light, which it doesn't.

Why wouldn't you see light at the end of the hallway initially? It has to travel to you longer. So all Redshift really tells you is that the universe is expanding, which is not only consistent with Big Bang ideals, but is also described in the Bible, where it says God "expanded" the heavens.
So where you should rest your argument, is whether the earth existed before or after said expansion.
panorama
5 / 5 (16) Jul 18, 2011
All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence.

To paraphrase the great Jason and Randy Sklar, Creationists are like people who still believe "professional" wrestling is real. No matter how much evidence to the contrary you throw at them they still believe in something that is demonstrably false.
J-n
3.6 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
Redshift is like the Doppler Effect though. It's more of a measure of distance.


My point is that one of the arguements against the earth being older than 6000 years is that redshift is made up. I had linked to an article that talks about measuring distance greater than 6000ly without using redshift as a form of measure.

So even without redshift the uinverse is MUCH MUCH older than genesis describes.

So really my point was for all the YEC's here on Physorg, pointing out a flaw in their logic.
Tachyon
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
What is your theory as to how the universe was created?


Well, there are many of them out there...personally i'm studying the ones related to apparent brightness relations, the CBR as gravitationally redshifted blackbody cavity radiation from an outer galactic shell, or the CBR as an absolute reference frame for the universe, just to mention some of them. They may be right or wrong, but it's interesting to consider other possibilities.
Argon
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 18, 2011
@AAhhzz01

"While I do have faith in a Creator, and the Chirstian one in fact. I also have doubts of the Accuracy of Genesis."

Why? Jesus referred to the accuracy and authority of Genesis over and over again:

Genesis 1:1 in Matthew 19:4 and Matthew 19:8 and Mark 10:6
Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 in Matthew 19:4 and Mark 10:6
Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 and Mark 10:7-8

Furthermore, Jesus referred to:

-"the flood" of Genesis 6,7, and 8 in Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-27

So, if you don't doubt Jesus, why doubt Genesis?

@Peteri

Are you suggesting that creationists believe the fossils were "created" as is, never living?; Doesn't seem logical!

@j-n

Your "PILES and PILES of evidence" are piles of dung: IF their assumptions are false! That aside, I enjoyed the article you linked: thank you!

@kevinrtrs

"All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence."

Please do elaborate!
A1batross
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
"Expansion of space is not limited by speed of light. Speed of light only determines the observable universe from any point in such spacetime, but actual universe may be much larger, possibly infinite."

Okay, so the BB occurred and space unfurled (my term) at some velocity faster than the speed of light... but how did this gamma-ray-emitting object get to BE in the space it's in? Did space unfurl with things in it? I mean, yeah, let's say space is infinite and it "appeared" all at once with the BB. But how did the quasars and this GRB 090429B get to be in these distant locations 13.5 B years ago?

Was everything close together, and the like dots on a balloon got farther apart as more space appeared between them? Did GRB 090429B "surf" to the edges of our observable universe on a wave of expanding space? Did the universe form with a semirandom but consistent field of matter (hydrogen? subatomic particles?) in it everyplace at once?
Tachyon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2011
J-n:

There are many theories out there...personally i'm studying the ones related to apparent brightness relations, the CBR as gravitationally redshifted blackbody cavity radiation from an outer galactic shell, or the CBR as an absolute reference frame for the universe, just to mention some of them. They may be right or wrong, but it's interesting to consider other possibilities.
ShotmanMaslo
4.5 / 5 (2) Jul 18, 2011

Was everything close together, and the like dots on a balloon got farther apart as more space appeared between them? Did GRB 090429B "surf" to the edges of our observable universe on a wave of expanding space? Did the universe form with a semirandom but consistent field of matter (hydrogen? subatomic particles?) in it everyplace at once?


Yes, the baloon (much larger than the observable universe) inflated very quickly in the first fraction of a second (cosmic inflation), then continued to increase in size due to inertia up to now. This expansion was also affected by gravity slowing the expansion down and dark energy speeding it up. The baloon model is a very good analogy, indeed.

http://en.wikiped...rbations
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 18, 2011
All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence.

To paraphrase the great Jason and Randy Sklar, Creationists are like people who still believe "professional" wrestling is real. No matter how much evidence to the contrary you throw at them they still believe in something that is demonstrably false.


Enjoy:
http://www.youtub...NyKIGXiI
Argon
1.7 / 5 (9) Jul 18, 2011
@ShotmanMaslo

"Expansion of space is not limited by speed of light. Speed of light only determines the observable universe from any point in such spacetime, but actual universe may be much larger, possibly infinite."

"Expansion" suggests the extension of a border, a "border" suggests that the universe is not infinite. Therefore, either the universe is not infinite or the universe is not expanding!

@A1batross

"Now, I'm not saying it STARTED where we are now, I'm just saying that if the speed of light limits velocity, how could any two objects be billions of LY apart when the Universe was only half a billion years old?"

The speed of light doesn't limit velocity, it only limits our observation of velocity: by limiting the velocity of information (information carried by the photons moving at the speed of the photons)!
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
In my theory the Universe is infinite and the observable part of Universe appears like the landscape under the haze. We are surrounded with infinite crowds of galaxies, but we cannot see them, because of the dispersion of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum, the CMBR noise in particular. BTW, the same dispersion is responsible for the red shift and so-called dark energy. Only the brightest objects are visible at the Hubble deep field like the lights of lighthouse penetrating the fog at the horizon.
Argon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
In my theory the Universe is infinite and the observable part of Universe appears like the landscape under the haze. We are surrounded with infinite crowds of galaxies, but we cannot see them, because of the dispersion of light at the density fluctuations of vacuum, the CMBR noise in particular. BTW, the same dispersion is responsible for the red shift and so-called dark energy. Only the brightest objects are visible at the Hubble deep field like the lights of lighthouse penetrating the fog at the horizon.


Interesting theory! So, in your theory the universe is not expanding?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (21) Jul 18, 2011
HEY kev, fargon, yellowfart,

ooh sorry dudes. Science again confirms the obvious:

"Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods"
http://www.latime...60.story

"And the better we understand the science, the closer we can come to "no heaven no hell and no religion too."

"The better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion. Some of them, like the attachment system, push us toward a belief in gods and make departing from it extraordinarily difficult. But it is possible.

"We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason."

-Let go and let god... go.
cont
A1batross
4 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
"The speed of light doesn't limit velocity, it only limits our observation of velocity: by limiting the velocity of information (information carried by the photons moving at the speed of the photons)!"

I'm pretty sure this is completely incorrect. The whole point of E=mc^2 is that no object can accelerate beyond (or quite to) the speed of light.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2011
'Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. RELIGION HIJACKS THESE TRAITS [emPHAsis ottos]. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies."

-Meaning tribalism. Religions are an organized expression of inward altruism in conjunction with outward animosity.

The single most powerful obstacle to the perception that all humans are part of one tribe, is YOU RELIGIONISTS. Arent you ashamed?
Argon
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
"The speed of light doesn't limit velocity, it only limits our observation of velocity: by limiting the velocity of information (information carried by the photons moving at the speed of the photons)!"

I'm pretty sure this is completely incorrect. The whole point of E=mc^2 is that no object can accelerate beyond (or quite to) the speed of light.


I'm not disputing E=mc^2 so much as I am disputing the commonly accepted value of c in all frames of reference!
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
So, in your theory the universe is not expanding?
In my theory the Universe appears expanding, when being observed with light of wavelength shorter than the wavelength of CMBR noise and it appears collapsing in the radiowaves. In microwaves it does nothing. Actually, this is what is really observed. The ripples at the water surface are doing the same stuff: when they're larger, than ~ 1,7 cm, then they're dispersing and their wavelength is expanding. When they're smaller than the ~ 1,7 cm, then they're collapsing, instead. When the ripples of wavelength 1.7 cm are expanding at the water surface, their amplitude gradually ceases to zero, but their wavelength doesn't change very much during this.
Argon
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
So, in your theory the universe is not expanding?
In my theory the Universe appears expanding, when being observed with light of wavelength shorter than the wavelength of CMBR noise and it appears collapsing in the radiowaves. In microwaves it does nothing. Actually, this is what is really observed. The ripples at the water surface are doing the same stuff: when they're larger, than ~ 1,7 cm, then they're dispersing and their wavelength is expanding. When they're smaller than the ~ 1,7 cm, then they're collapsing, instead. When the ripples of wavelength 1.7 cm are expanding at the water surface, their amplitude gradually ceases to zero, but their wavelength doesn't change very much during this.


Again, interesting theory! In your theory, is the mass of the universe constant?
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (70) Jul 18, 2011
Religions are an organized expression of inward altruism in conjunction with outward animosity.


Beautifully said.
NotAsleep
5 / 5 (1) Jul 18, 2011
"The speed of light doesn't limit velocity, it only limits our observation of velocity: by limiting the velocity of information (information carried by the photons moving at the speed of the photons)!"

I'm pretty sure this is completely incorrect. The whole point of E=mc^2 is that no object can accelerate beyond (or quite to) the speed of light.

Argon could've said it differently to aid in clarity but his statement doesn't violate causality. E still equals mc^2.

Callippo, you write much better here but I'd still like to see you cite somewhere that validates your theory
Argon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
Religions are an organized expression of inward altruism in conjunction with outward animosity.


Beautifully said.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 18, 2011
Religions are an organized expression of inward altruism in conjunction with outward animosity.


Beautifully said.
Danke. This moral dichotomy has been recognized by a number of researchers as noted by J.M.G. van der Dennen in his excellent paper:
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-One more natural human tendency which religions HIJACKED.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
In your theory, is the mass of the universe constant?
What do you mean with "mass of Universe"? In my theory the vacuum is massive, too. If you have the mass of observable matter on mind, then yes. I presume, the galaxies are condensing and evaporating from visible part of Universe in similar way, like the giant fluctuations of gas. If some galaxy evaporates into radiation, then some other will condense from streaks of dark matter at another place. But this model has many limitations too. For example, there is no good reason for belief, the space-time brane forming the observable Universe is completely flat like the water surface. We already observing, it's of hyperbolic geometry due the CMBR Doppler anisotropy.

For example, a famous astronomer Laura Mersini is believing, the observable Universe appears like giant quantum wave traveling through our part of Universe. So it's possible, the Universe will behave rather like a mixture of Steady State model and Big Bang model.
Callippo
2.4 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
Today we can be sure with only one thing: the observable Universe is much smaller, than the remaining portion of it. Big Bang theory considers, the Universe has been formed just before the light escaped from particle horizon (i.e. before 13.7 Gyrs). But we already observing well developed objects older than 13.2 Gyears already (i.e. the galaxies with high degree of metalicity). Such galaxies would require few billions of years for their formation. And there are another indicia, the Universe is actually way larger, than the Big Bang model is considering. We can expect, with further improvement of observational techniques our perspective of observable Universe will expand even more.

http://www.techno...iv/26333
Argon
1.5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

"-One more natural human tendency which religions HIJACKED."

Your statement begs the question: is religion a natural tendency and if not is it a supernatural tendency? I think your assumption is that one natural tendency is capable of "hijacking" another natural tendency or that a supernatural tendency is able to hijack a natural tendency: one seems to contradict freewill and therefore stands devoid of the care of will and is therefore a vanity of vanities, that which serves no purpose!
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (70) Jul 18, 2011
both seem to contradict freewill


Total non sequitur.

a vanity of vanities


Believing you are made in the image of a deity is the height of vanity.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
IMO with increasing scope of our predictions the religion and science converge mutually to 1:1 ratio. Today many people believe in multiverses, dark stars, cosmic strings and many other assumptions, which are playing the role of dogmas in medieval religions. Even the Bible has some rudimentary logical structure in it: for example the Christians believed, the Earth is five thousands years old and they deduced various conclusions from it (no matter, how such ideas appear for us by now). If the Bible would be completely illogical, then the evolutionary theory wouldn't contradict the Genesis at all. Note that the Big Bang was originally a creationist hypothesis promoted with Lamaitre, i.e. with priest of Catholic Church. Many people believe in finite Universe just because of its connection to the idea of Universe beginning by Genesis. Now we should make one step further and we should ask, what actually prohibits us to think about infinite Universe?
Callippo
2.2 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
In this context is symptomatic, many ideas of Fred Hoyle, who was strong opponent of Big Bang model and who called it a Christianic pseudoscience was a promoter of many creacionistic ideas at the same moment (like the panspermia hypothesis). The religion and science naturally converge in natural philosophy, despite you want to admit or not.

We could model this convergence with mutual convergence of transverse (i.e. strictly deterministic) and longitudinal wave spreading at the huge distances along water surface. If you follow the spreading of these waves at the sufficient distance from their source, both these aspects of energy spreading will converge mutually into chaotic noise.
Argon
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
@Callippo

I've always thought that the Big Bang theory assumes a finite universe, because would it not require either an infinite amount of time or an infinite velocity of expansion to achieve an infinite diameter? In other words, if the big bang theory assumes both a finite time and finite velocity then it does not seem that an infinite diameter is even in the scope of the theory. Therefore, the big bang theory assumes a finite universe, if and ond only if, both time and velocity are assumed finite.

If this is the case, then how do you reconcile a steady state with a big bang?
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (70) Jul 18, 2011
Has any scientist murdered another over his advocation of "multiverses, dark stars, cosmic strings, and many other assumptions"? How about imprisoned? Gone to war?

Science comes up with all sorts of bad ideas. However, science self corrects. Religionists/cranks are so fond of pointing out Ptolemy's epicycles, yet when was the last time they were considered valid science? If any scientists still used them I'd say you have a point, but you don't.

Religion doesn't correct. Religion must be correct from the beginning to be the "god's honest truth". This is never the case however and all religions have evident gaping holes far away from the defense of "you can't prove god isn't real, neener neener neener."

For example even assuming Yahweh were real he is nothing like his followers espouse. He is a vindictive, vain, jealous, murderous bigot. I wouldn't worship him even if popped up in front of me this very moment. I have free will after all ;-)
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
If this is the case, then how do you reconcile a steady state with a big bang?
If you would sit at the water surface like the water strider and if the surface waves would be the only source of information about events from remote places of your "2D universe", you would observe, with increasing distance the remote sources of waves are getting more and more blurred and their waves disperse gradually into underwater, while changing their frequency in similar way, which the Big Bang theory is describing with its FLRW metric like the metric expansion of space-time. At the sufficient distance everything would be covered with Brownian noise in similar way, like we cannot recognize remote objects behind particle horizon of Universe from CMBR noise.

We could simply ask: "In which aspect our 2D perspective at the water surface would differ from the perspective of our 3D universe" (if we neglect the different number of dimensions), after then?
Argon
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2011
@FrankHerbert

Something that is already correct doesn't need to be corrected, example: the Bible!
Argon
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
@Callippo

I see now I should have asked you from the get go: How many dimensions does your theory of the universe predict?
Callippo
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
Has any scientist murdered another over his advocation of "multiverses, dark stars, cosmic strings, and many other assumptions"? How about imprisoned? Gone to war?
Today it's not necessary to murder scientists for their opinion, because contemporary scientists aren't doing their research for their own money (like the Galieo or Faraday did) and the number of informational sources increased tremendously.

Today it's quite sufficient to silence people in economical way - the scientists cannot research and they would be forced to find another job. Because of immense number of people in contemporary society the opinion of isolated person without financial support will become as insignificant, like the opinion of barbecued person in medieval sparse society.
Callippo
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
How many dimensions does your theory of the universe predict?
My theory does consider nothing specific about Universe, unless absolutely necessary, because every assumption would make such model biased and dependent on validity scope of this assumption.

So IMO the Universe appears like the infinite-dimensional random noise, because we are a much smaller, than the rest of Universe. For every small portion of larger system the rest of system will behave like the randomness. The question rather is, how to model such randomness in physically relevant way.

I've chosen the model of Boltzmann gas, because of its transparentness and historical connotations, but I do believe, the wave equation in infinite number of dimensions would do the same job. Actually, with infinite number of dimensions or particles you can imagine, what you want in such Universe: the steady state or big bang or periodic one. This is IMO the reason, why contemporary models converge mutually.
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
How many dimensions does your theory of the universe predict?
We should rather ask, which dimensionality should the largest observable structure have. If you would model the vacuum like the particle gas composed of closely packed spheres, we can ask, for which number of dimensions such sphere packing will allow the slowest propagation of transverse waves across their volume. IMO this question is equivalent to question, for which number of dimensions the ratio of surface and volume of closely packed hyperspheres (so called the packing density) would get its largest value?

Surprisingly, this question is pretty hard to predict with formal math, because it's connected with validity of Kepler's conjecture, which wasn't proven in rigorous way yet. But from the table presented there we can see, this ratio is largest just for three-dimensional hypersphere. From this indicia we can deduce, the vacuum is three-dimensional system.

http://mathworld....ing.html
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 18, 2011
Something that is already correct doesn't need to be corrected, example: the Bible!


Except that it isn't
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (68) Jul 18, 2011
You know, I'm starting to like Kevin because he rarely posts after his initial hit and run.
Argon
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 18, 2011
Something that is already correct doesn't need to be corrected, example: the Bible!


Except that it isn't


Which part? Please don't just say "all of it": use a specific example so that your statement can be verified and fairly challenged!
Callippo
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
This semi-qualitative finding is consistent with prediction of string theorists, in which the false vacuum should undergo the spontaneous symmetry breaking into mixture of 3D branes representing the vacuum fluctuations and 7D branes representing the massive particles in it.

http://xxx.lanl.g.../0506053

Recently the another prediction was given with using of holographic principle, the AdS/CFT correspondence principle in particular with the generalization of Lagrangian for entropic flow to arbitrary number of dimensions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.4548

The resulting value is n=2.97 for maximal entropy flow and minimum around 7 numbers of dimensions, again. This result is interesting, because it lies bellow three number slightly, so it implies the closed geometry Universe, as we are really observing in visible light.

Anyway, as I explained above, from my model follows, the dimensionality of Universe is dependent on the wavelength of light, in which we are observing it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2011
Your statement begs the question

No it doesnt. Your question however is begging the question.
http://begthequestion.info/
is religion a natural tendency...supernatural tendency?
As there IS no supernatural/metaphysical, then the answer is obvious. Read the article I sourced.
one seems to contradict freewill and therefore stands devoid of the care of will
More religionist/philo flummery. Your nonsense statements cannot be addressed reasonably.
and is therefore a vanity of vanities, that which serves no purpose
Yah and your popular but guilt-inducing KJ bible mistranslation is properly read thus:

2"Meaningless! Meaningless!"
says the Teacher.
"Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless."

"I said to myself,
"This too is meaningless."
16For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die!"

And never to rise. The End. Too bad.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2011
Something that is already correct doesn't need to be corrected, example: the Bible!


Except that it isn't


Which part? Please don't just say "all of it": use a specific example so that your statement can be verified and fairly challenged!
Sorry to butt in frank but the Deceptionist is obviously bored. I like to refer this question to this website:
http://www.evilbi...lies.htm

-because its format and tone so resemble the many religionist ones I have visited. It is also pretty thorough in its expositions.
Argon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Maybe a misunderstanding? What is your meaning of the word "tendency"?

Anyway, enjoy your evening!
Callippo
1 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
However, science self corrects.
After all, even Holly Church is self-correcting its opinions. The question is, if its able to self-correct sufficiently fast and if it's able to give a credit to people, who helped in such correction. For example, when science corrects itself after sixty years, most of proponents of original correct ideas are already dead - from their perspective no self-correction occurred at all.

If science will self-correct itself regarding cold fusion, but we would experience global financial crisis and/or even nuclear war for the rest of fossil fuel sources during this, then it's questionable, if it was really the science, which helped the people in realization of the truth.

In general, the science sucks because people suck, the system is rotten, because people are rotten. We shouldn't expect the system better, then its elements already are - it's classical ideological mistake of all proponents of idealistic systems from laissez-faire to communism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 18, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

Maybe a misunderstanding? What is your meaning of the word "tendency"?
I'm sorry, what was the context please?
Anyway, enjoy your evening!
Anyway, bite me!
You know, I'm starting to like Kevin because he rarely posts after his initial hit and run.
Yah but he's a significant disruption nonetheless as they all must be addressed.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (69) Jul 18, 2011
Which part? Please don't just say "all of it": use a specific example so that your statement can be verified and fairly challenged!


Explain the logic behind an infinitely loving (so he doesn't want to) and infinitely powerful (so he doesn't have to) being damning his own creations to eternal torture. Let's start with that one.

Either the bible is: wrong about god's infinite love, wrong about his omnipotence, wrong about hell, or just plain wrong.
Argon
1 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2011
@FrankHerbert

God's love is not infinite! Jeremiah 6:30
He is omnipotent! Jeremiah 32:17
Hell is a real place! Revelation 20:12-15

If you believe that God doesn't hate anyone then go read Psalm 5:5!

The Bible doesn't teach that God's love is infinite: whoever told you that is a liar!
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 18, 2011
The book of Jeremiah is superseded by the New Testament where applicable. The same applies to Psalms.

Revelations is considered allegorical by all but the most adamant literalists. Also as far as I'm aware, these are the only passages that can be construed to support the idea of hell as a physical place. "Distance from god" is the major theme concerning hell in the Old Testament.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.


John 3:16 says I just kicked your ass (wrestling joke). The
-o n l y- sin that precludes someone from being considered christian is denying the sacrifice of Jesus.
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
@FrankHerbert

If you want to hear some more on the issue:
http://www.faithf...110a.mp3
omatumr
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 18, 2011
Other important details in their new paper confirm that the object is similar to more nearby GRBs, and consequently that - even at this early stage of cosmic life - at least some stars already resembled stars in our local universe.

As NOT predicted by the Big Bang - which would have us believe that they should be completely different - much younger looking. So here is a contradiction again and nobody is getting too excited about it because it's become the norm now. Just about every other day the BB gets falsified and I think by now the cosmologists have resigned themselves to that fact. All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence.


You are right. There was no Big Bang [1,2].

1. "Is the Universe Expanding?", The Journal of Cosmology 13, 4187-4190 (2011)

http://journalofc...102.html

2. "Neutron Repulsion", APEIRON, in press (2011)

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1

O. Manuel
Argon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2011
@omatumr

Will you mind giving me Neutron Repulsion in a nutshell! You seem to think that it explains alot! Please lay it out for me; give me the skinny of neutron repulsion!
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
ARGH! this makes the jwst being behind schedule even harder to accept. its gonna be awesome to see what new discoveries we make and i hate waiting

as for oliver-even if he does try to explain his logic he wont answer any of the many questions that naturally arise from it. It's pointless to talk to oliver, we've tried many times.If you feel like a walk into olivers crazy world i'd read the paper he always links to on arxiv, 95% of the other ones he links to dont actually support him in any way. let me warn you that you cant get any of the time you spend reading it back, its gone forever, just like olivers credibility.
kevinrtrs
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2011
@FrankHerbert:
All the theory of BB has to be taken by faith - there was no one there to observe and record it for you. Just think about that for a moment. This means that the adherence to the BB is really religion. You are welcome to that, as long as you realize that that is the case. It's not a "fact" even though thousands of scientists would like it to be.
Here in this very article you have something physical and observable that quite clearly contradicts the theory - as does a lot of observations these days. As this accumulates, more and more adhoc assumptions have to be made to keep obs in line with the theory[religion]. Some of those assumptions are now also beginning to contradict each other. Faith is required to accept them.

Since you've taken your stance regarding God and made it public, the only thing I can say is that we'll both find out when we die as to who was correct after all.
Husky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 19, 2011
i don't know if professional wrestling is real, but Randy Savage was God.
kevinrtrs
1.2 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
@FrankHerbert,GhostOfOtto,Perteri.
I take it you guys are aware that your worldview differs from mine and as a result all the physical evidence gets interpreted differently. So no matter what the actual observations are, we'll probably differ in our pronouncements of what it means.

I wonder about the logic of your viewpoint, the BB. Take for instance the small, highly irritating case of the origin of the BB - the singularity. No scientist really want to talk about this because it's a huge physical obstacle to overcome. In fact it's impossible from a thermodynamic point of view to get out of it. It's a dead end. The only way to get out of there is via that which you so despise - a miracle! So right from the start you have to have faith that somehow, something stupendously miraculous caused a singularity to overcome it's thermodynamic prison and produce the universe.

You've chosen to accept this, even though it's not a logical, physically testable or observable event. It's religion.
Argon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
@omatumr

I read your paper! Interesting: I should like to know more about the distribution of potential energy within a helium atom's nucleus vs a hydrogen atom's nucleus upon ionization of these atoms. Now since H is our only atom with no neutrons and the very next in line is He, a noble gas, the difference in their first ionization energies and what part the neutrons may play, if any, upon it is a point of interest: with special regards to the redistribution of potential energy within the nucleus upon ionization and how that distribution may be affected by an adiabatic ionization event.

I suppose the bigger question is: is all the potential energy redistributed among remaining electrons or is some stored within the neutrons/protons: in general what effect does neutron repulsion within nuclii and between two atom's nucleons have upon changes in potential energy distributions during ionization events?

Thanks in advance for your reply!
Argon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
@omatumr
It is my understanding that the ionization energy of deuterium is greater than that of hydrogen, which at face value seems to lend credibility to some of the suggestions in your paper. I wonder if you have come up with any equations that would account for neutron repulsion during ionization events?

You seem to be highly focused on the implications for nuclear reactions, but have you given much thought to its implications at the atomic/ionic level?
Argon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
@omatumr
Can neutron repulsion explain bound-state B- decay?

For example: as we ionize Re-187 towards an ionization number of 75 its rate of decay increases dramatically! Can this change be described in terms of a redistribution of energies among the nucleons in a way that favors an increase in B- decay? What is the neutron repulsion factor and can we characterize this energy distribution? And if we can, then, can we predict the new values of B- decay for certain elements in stars and in the cores of planets? How can we test these predictions here on earth?
Deesky
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
All the theory of BB has to be taken by faith

Total bullshit. It didn't even exist before technology reached the stage that enabled us to see the cosmos in sufficient detail to lead to an evidence based theory.

there was no one there to observe and record it for you. J

More bullshit. Thanks to the finite speed of light, we have a convenient time machine which precisely allows to see the recorded past of the universe.

Just think about that for a moment.

I wish you would. Better yet, grow a brain.

This means that the adherence to the BB is really religion.

That is not only a tautology, but is also based on a straw man. Brilliant, Sherlock!

You are welcome to that, as long as you realize that that is the case. It's not a "fact" even though thousands of scientists would like it to be.

Liar.

more...
Deesky
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 19, 2011
Here in this very article you have something physical and observable that quite clearly contradicts the theory

And what would that be and why?

as does a lot of observations these days.

Like what?

As this accumulates, more and more adhoc assumptions have to be made to keep obs in line with the theory[religion].

Unwittingly, you are right! That is exactly what the sky fairy brigade are doing, unless they fall into the camp of the willfully ignorant and don't even bother making up excuses, but simply deny reality.

Since you've taken your stance regarding God and made it public, the only thing I can say is that we'll both find out when we die as to who was correct after all.

Why wait?

more...
Pharago
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
maybe the big bang is not a good explanation for the redshift, maybe the expansion of space is not the answer, that dosn't mean some goat herders from the middle east knew 4000 years ago something not even we can figure out with all our technological advancements
Deesky
4 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2011
I take it you guys are aware that your worldview differs from mine and as a result all the physical evidence gets interpreted differently

Correct. In the rational world view, evidence is used to bolster scientific theories. In your irrational world view, physical evidence is ignored, attacked and/or misrepresented.

So no matter what the actual observations are we'll probably differ in our pronouncements of what it means

Yup.

You've chosen to accept this, even though it's not a logical, physically testable or observable event. It's religion

No, it isn't. It's evidence. The fact that we cannot answer all questions at this time (or likely ever), doesn't negate the trail of numerous interlocking pieces of evidence which overwhelmingly points to what is today the dominant cosmological origin theory.

Science isn't magic. It has its limitations. Also scientists know this and aren't afraid to admit it. Science is a process of discovery, and it's the only game in town.
windjammer
2 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Let's see. The light has been traveling for 13.2 billion years and 96% of the age of the universe (13.75 billion years). That means that this distant object, somehow, became 13.2 billion lightyears distant in about 0.55 billion years. What am I missing? That would mean that it either started, intially, about 12.67 billion years distant or it went waaay faster than the speed of light. Now, I realize I must be missing something but I just don't see what I'm missing.
windjammer
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
Actually, the more I think about it, the more that whole comment doesn't make sense. If the universe is only 13.75 billion years old, how could things be 30 billion light years distant? That would mean that they were traveling far faster than the speed of light.

Now, personally, I've always wondered if the speed of light changed over time. Don't worry, I'm not all hung up on the idea, but it would make life interesting if the speed of light were equal to the rate of expansion of the universe and good arguments could be made for why that would make sense. Like, things could be 30 billion light years distant in a universe that is only 13.75 billion years old.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2011
So right from the start you have to have faith that somehow, something stupendously miraculous caused a singularity to overcome it's thermodynamic prison and produce the universe.
Wow. Unlike god, we do get a response from keV. Kevin there's a difference between faith and confidence. We have a growing confidence in science because of it's outstanding record of describing the way the universe works. You have faith in your religion despite it's consistant failure to do this. See the difference?

Repent. The end of religion is nigh.
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 19, 2011
Now, I realize I must be missing something but I just don't see what I'm missing.

The early exponential inflationary phase of the universe.

If the universe is only 13.75 billion years old, how could things be 30 billion light years distant?

That is the distance NOW, not when we're seeing the light. In addition to the inflationary period at the start of the universe, the universe continues to expand - stretching the distance between distant objects. What's more, the expansion is accelerating and some day the light emitted by distant objects will not be able to catchup to us and so will never be seen again.

Now, personally, I've always wondered if the speed of light changed over time.

This has been tested for, but so far there is no evidence for it.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2011
Let's see. The light has been traveling for 13.2 billion years and 96% of the age of the universe (13.75 billion years). That means that this distant object, somehow, became 13.2 billion lightyears distant in about 0.55 billion years. What am I missing?


While the light has been travelling (13.2 billion years), the universe continued to expand. There are various distances then:

Angular diameter distance = distance between us and the galaxy when the light was emmited = cca 3 billion ly

Light travel time = time or distance that the light has travelled = 13.2 billion ly

Comoving (proper) distance = distance between the galaxy and us at present = cca 28 billion ly

windjammer
2 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
I haven't seen anything, yet, explaining away the fact that something has to have been moving faster than the speed of light.

I did like the comment about light speed changing over time, that there is no evidence yet. That was very well worded. Accuracy is what it's all about. Again, as I studied things, it really doesn't seem to add up to light changing over time. Too bad, really. I've always wondered why is c pegged at 186,000 mps. Why not 187? I've never seen an answer to that question. The ignoring of that question is one of the main reason I drove myself out of physics.
windjammer
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
"The early exponential inflationary phase of the universe"

So, are you saying that it was ok to go faster than the speed of light for the first billion years or so?
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
I haven't seen anything, yet, explaining away the fact that something has to have been moving faster than the speed of light.

What do you mean? What fact? Nothing has moved faster than light.

I've always wondered why is c pegged at 186,000 mps. Why not 187? I've never seen an answer to that question.

Neither has anyone else! When it comes to those 'why' type of questions, we're all pretty much in the dark.

The ignoring of that question is one of the main reason I drove myself out of physics.

It's not a matter of it being ignored, it's just that we have no framework to be able to answer such a question. Why is the universe quantum? Can it be any other way? Who knows.

So, are you saying that it was ok to go faster than the speed of light for the first billion years or so?

No. It was space-time that was expanding. Nothing with mass was being propelled >c. And the period was much, much less than a billion years.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
Science isn't magic. It has its limitations. Also scientists know this and aren't afraid to admit it.

Hell yeah. If it wasn't like that we'd be out of a job.

Seriously: Science is the act of fitting models to observations. If the model is good then it holds predictive value for as yet unobserved phenomena (giving an indication that the new data and the old are probably somehow linked).

As a scientist I have to also note that this doesn't make any theory 'true' in the absolute boolean sense of the word - ever. It just makes some theories more useful and some less useful (and some so useful that we call them 'laws' instead of theories which shouldn't be construed to mean that they are final - e.g. Newtons 'law' of gravity et. al.).

The search for capital "T" Truth isn't part of science.
Mostly because the definition of such a truth seems to be a logical fallacy and there's no point in searching for something that cannot exist.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (1) Jul 19, 2011
I haven't seen anything, yet, explaining away the fact that something has to have been moving faster than the speed of light.


From wikipedia:

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such constraint in general relativity. An expanding universe generally has a cosmological horizon, and like a black hole event horizon, this marks the boundary to the part of the universe that an observer can see. The horizon is the boundary beyond which objects are moving away too fast to be visible from Earth.


http://en.wikiped...smology)
ShotmanMaslo
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2011
The size of the universe may be trillions of lightyears, or even infinite. The size of the universe is not constrained by speed of light times its age. That is a common misconception. Only size of the OBSERVABLE universe is constrained by this factor.
ShotmanMaslo
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
"Expansion" suggests the extension of a border, a "border" suggests that the universe is not infinite. Therefore, either the universe is not infinite or the universe is not expanding!


No, expansion means that distances in the universe are increasing on average, the expansion is intristic, the universe does not expand into anything. Both finite and infinite universe can expand. Big bang theory does not assume anything about the size of the universe, or whether it is finite or infinite.
Argon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
@ShotmanManslo

If expansion doesn't mean the extension of a border, resulting in an increase in diameter from some central point, then the whole idea of the "universe expanding" is total nonsense, because there is no way to observe the so-called "expansion" if there is no means for measuring an increase in diameter, without first establishing a radius about a central axis of expansion that can be used to judge an increase in radius over time!
windjammer
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
Wll, thanks to both Shotmaslo and Deesky for attempting to answer my questions seriously. I guess it's time to do some brain-wracking becuase I still don't get it.

I gotta add, though, that why c is a certain speed (rather than some other speed) seems like a very straightforward question that phsyics should take very seriously. It's a little bit different that the heisenberg principle or quantum entanglement. Or, even pi. It's not just an isolated fact. It should, I would think, be related to something about our particular universe and it may be very enlightening to know what.
LivaN
3 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
"The early exponential inflationary phase of the universe"

So, are you saying that it was ok to go faster than the speed of light for the first billion years or so?


No the speed doesn't change, but rather the distance changes as space warpes. This creates an "apparent" faster than light movement, which is perfectly acceptable to current laws of physics.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
@ShotmanManslo

If expansion doesn't mean the extension of a border, resulting in an increase in diameter from some central point, then the whole idea of the "universe expanding" is total nonsense, because there is no way to observe the so-called "expansion" if there is no means for measuring an increase in diameter, without first establishing a radius about a central axis of expansion that can be used to judge an increase in radius over time!


There is no center or axis of the expansion, the expansion is uniform everywhere. We can measure it relatively to position of matter in the universe (galaxy groups are getting further apart from each other), and by measuring redshift to see that they move away from each other.

Read this wiki article, and notice the pictures:

http://en.wikiped...of_space
omatumr
1 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
@omatumr

Will you mind giving me Neutron Repulsion in a nutshell! Please lay it out for me; give me the skinny of neutron repulsion!


Thanks for your interest. You already have a good basic grasp of nuclear energy. Congratulations!

To advance, re-read [1] slowly; Contemplate/meditate/reflect on data that took me 36 years to decipher. [Learning is an inside job; There are no short-cuts.]:

Figs 5-7: Nuclear rest mass data, Mass parabolas, Intercepts at Z/A = (0, 1); Energy summary shows why most compact, oldest matter is greatest energy source.

Fig 4: Composition of solar mantle

Fig 3: Solar mass fractionation

Fig 1: All primordial He initially tagged with excess Xe-136 from r-process

Fig 2: 1975 scenario proposed for birth of solar system

Finally I want to thank the authors of this study - Edo Berger, Alicia Soderberg, and Ryan Foley - and the editors of PhysOrg.com for posting it here.

1. "Neutron repulsion" (2011) & references cited

http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
Deesky
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 19, 2011
If expansion doesn't mean the extension of a border, resulting in an increase in diameter from some central point, then the whole idea of the "universe expanding" is total nonsense, because there is no way to observe the so-called "expansion"

Borders are irrelevant, as is your simplistic geometric analogy. Before you call well established observations 'nonsense', I suggest you brush up on the Hubble diagram (a plot of galactic distance wrt to speed of recesseion). This goes back to the late 1920s and has been verified many times since.
omatumr
1 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Science isn't magic. It has its limitations. Also scientists know this and aren't afraid to admit it.

Hell yeah. If it wasn't like that we'd be out of a job.

Seriously: Science is the act of fitting models to observations. If the model is good then it holds predictive value for as yet unobserved phenomena (giving an indication that the new data and the old are probably somehow linked).

As a scientist I have to also note that this doesn't make any theory 'true' in the absolute boolean sense of the word - ever. It just makes some theories more useful and some less useful (and some so useful that we call them 'laws' instead of theories which shouldn't be construed to mean that they are final - e.g. Newtons 'law' of gravity et. al.).

The search for capital "T" Truth isn't part of science.
Mostly because the definition of such a truth seems to be a logical fallacy and there's no point in searching for something that cannot exist.


Truthing is a great way of life.

OKM
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 19, 2011
I gotta add, though, that why c is a certain speed (rather than some other speed) seems like a very straightforward question that phsyics should take very seriously.

Oftentimes it's the 'straightforward' questions which are the hardest to answer. Cosmologists do take these things seriously, but until there is a deep theory which can explain everything from first principles, the prospects are slim that this particular question will be answered.

It should, I would think, be related to something about our particular universe and it may be very enlightening to know what.

Yes, I completely agree - I would love to know the answer too. I just don't see any short to medium term prospects for doing so...
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Here is an interesting article explaining misconceptions about redshift in cosmology:

http://www.astron...pan.html
LivaN
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Argon
If expansion doesn't mean the extension of a border,then the whole idea of the "universe expanding" is total nonsense, because there is no way to observe the so-called "expansion

There need not be an observable border for one to realise an expansion, one can look for the effect that such an expansion would have.
On a planet in a galaxy we notice that every other galaxy is moving away from us at a speed that is proportional to the distance they are from us. Now since we know that we are not at the centre of the Universe, for why should our planet be at the centre? , it follow that space itself is expanding.
Like when a balloon with dots drawn on it gets inflated, you dont need to observe the balloon boundary from a 3D perspective outside of it to realise the surface is expanding. A sufficiently intelligent 2D creature living on the dot could make this discovery provided he had the necessary information and equipment. Just as we have, living on our 3D dot. ;)
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jul 19, 2011
Even IF redshift is completely wrong using paralax measurements (basic, undeniable geometry) we can determine that there are indeed stars beyond 6000ly away. If then there is even 1 star beyond 6000ly and the other stars in comparison are even farther out... well YEC's are not known for logic...
Javinator
4.5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Something that is already correct doesn't need to be corrected, example: the Bible!

Except that it isn't

Which part? Please don't just say "all of it": use a specific example so that your statement can be verified and fairly challenged!


I've always been confused about the logical fallacy regarding free will where God has a plan for everyone, but if you behave badly (and aren't sorry for it) then you go to hell. You can't have free will and be a part of a set plan.

The first example I can think of for this in the Bible is the necessity of Judas to betray Jesus as part of God's plan so that Jesus could be sacrificed for our sins.
Argon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
@Javinator

Just because God knows you are going to do something doesn't mean you didn't choose to do the thing.

If God knows that something is going to happen then there is no "chance" that it will not happen! In this case I concede that on account of God's omniscience: chance doesn't exist! However, considering what chance is, it is easy to see that chance only really exists in the minds of beings that are not omniscient.

Suppose I have a legit deck of cards, YOU shuffle them, set them on the table, turn your back to the table, then I look at the top four cards and see that they are all aces. Next you turn around and I ask "what are the chances that the first card is not an ace": you answer with whatever odds that you think are possible. Where does chance exist? Only in your mind, as you have not seen the cards, but chance doesn't exist in my mind as I know how the deck is stacked!

Hence, just because God knows how the deck is stacked doesn't mean that he stacked the deck!
Argon
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2011
@Javinator

God has his will and we have ours! No logical fallacy! If he wants you to do something and you choose not to then there are consequences, if you do what he wants then there are rewards! Life is actually quite simple! It just feels hard:)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
The first example I can think of for this in the Bible is the necessity of Judas to betray Jesus as part of God's plan so that Jesus could be sacrificed for our sins
Youre trying to reason your way through a fairy tale? Why? Bible novelists knew that the more irrational their stories were, the easier it would be to convince people that there was some kind of superior logic at work, when there obviously was not. Philosophy uses the same trickery.

Priests would make the attempt to explain while actually only throwing more obscurantism at their flock, only to finally claim that gods will was indeed too haughty and perfect for them to understand. Flummery.

The fact is we are too constrained by causality to have much free will at all. Certainly much less than most people imagine.

Science reveals the unconscious, the evolutionary structure of the brain, the chemicals, hormones, infections, PR, and deterioration we are subject to without our knowledge. Very little wiggle room left.
Argon
1.4 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
@LivaN

If there is no way to observe the extension of a border then how do we know that the "expansion" that we "observe" is universal and not merely a localised (observable field) event?

If I understand Hubble at all: he saw the universe expanding in every direction from his position of observation and instead of concluding that we are obviously at the center of the observable universe: he concluded that there is no center, because that would mean we have a previleged point of observation (which suggests creation) and because he didn't want to touch God with a ten foot pole he chose to believe and teach something that is non-falsifiable: that every place in the universe should look the same, even though he only ever saw it from one point of observation: earth!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2011
But if you are curious, unlike fArgon and the other Believers so convinced they already have the answer to every question asked and not yet asked, and askable even, then you might want to check out the recently discovered Gospel of Judas:
http://en.wikiped...of_Judas

-Like all the other gospels it was not written by who you would think wrote it, but by someone pretending to be he. It explains how judas was only following orders when he ratted on the little guru, as jesus already knew how events would play out.

While this makes more sense, it also makes less, which is a hallmark of genuine biblical deception. But we can understand why it was not included in the canon as it DOES answer questions which were meant to be left unanswered.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2011
...observe the extension of a border then how do we know...blabla
You are asking for answers that you have neither the training nor the acumen to understand.

Further, you are asking with an answer already in mind. This is the proper def of 'begging the question'... the answer being implicit in your leading and dishonest queries.

There are some aspects of the universe which are simply too complex for most people to understand. And- pay attention now- not being able to understand them does NOT mean that they are not true. It only means that they are impossible for you to ever understand.

For instance you may get the impression that you know how an airplane works because you sit in one and you meet the pilot who drives the thing. But this is only intellectual arrogance on your part.

You may earn as much and dress as well as the designers but you will NEVER know enough to design a plane. This would not be enough to keep you from asking them stupid questions at cocktail parties.
Argon
1 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2011
@Javinator

"I've always been confused about the logical fallacy regarding free will where God has a plan for everyone, but if you behave badly (and aren't sorry for it) then you go to hell. You can't have free will and be a part of a set plan."

Perhaps you are thinking that God is dealing with us arbitrarily on account of his omniscience: suppose you ask "why would God go ahead and create people that he knows he will send to hell?" perhaps the best answer for that question is that: God gives us existence and free will: if we choose to go to hell over heaven then what right do we have to blame God for creating us, since we made a willful choice in the face of a viable alternative choice! Yes, God dictates the options, but the choices belong to us: we shall live with them forever!

Judas made his choices, God declared Judas' choices a long, long, time in advance. However, niether the declaration nor its timing did anything to change the fact that they are still Judas' choices!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
but the choices belong to us: we shall live with them forever!
-Or until we die, whichever comes first. As souls dont exist. See the harry potter movie?

You know I figure the most tenacious of you guys are the ones making a living off these fables. Youre a preacher am I right? Johannes414 is. come on - fess up. Confess your sins.
panorama
not rated yet Jul 19, 2011
Life is actually quite simple! It just feels hard:)
My ghod tells me that all the time...especially the latter.
Argon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto

I'm not a preacher, never had the calling for it!
I do believe in the Bible and that belief has shaped my world view and how I interpret the imperical!

It's not like one is not intelligent because they believe the Bible and I would not say that someone is not intelligent if they don't believe it. However, that seems to be the message that some are putting out, constantly.

Just because we don't see eye to eye doesn't mean we should act blind to the good things we see in the people we disagree with.

I for one admit that I find in you a good sense of humor and intelligence, which I do appreciate: even though we don't agree on some things, that shouldn't change the things that we can appreaciate about each other.

And that seems like an encouraging thought!

Enjoy your day!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 19, 2011
I for one admit that I find in you a good sense of humor and intelligence
And who cares? I am immune to religionist suckuppery. I know your good cheer is part of the sermon. Smile while you steal their minds like any good drug dealer.

Your beliefs are a danger to the world. How do I make this clear to you? I know - black metal...
http://www.youtub...EgbOdCpY

'What is dead is dead.' -The unfortunate, inescapable, incomprehensible truth. Like so many, you cannot accept this so youre susceptible to anyone who will offer you a way around it with enough Authority.

But no way yet exists. Only science can provide eventual Salvation. Probably not for you but maybe for your children. Do NOT jeopardize their chances by discrediting science.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
I've always been confused about the logical fallacy regarding free will where God has a plan for everyone

I think you're confusing your genres - that sounds like a Cylon doctrine. :) Admittedly, they're both confusing and muddled.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 19, 2011
@Windjammer

I can answer your question as to why the speed of light is what it is. The speed of light can be defined as 1 Planck length per 1 Planck second, which is very intuitive on a deep level.

Imagine a photon traveling through space. The shortest distance that can be traversed is the Planck length and the shortest time that can be expressed is a Planck second. The fastest any object could possibly travel without skipping any of the intervening space would be 1 Planck length/1 Planck second or ~186,000 MPS.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2011
I can answer your question as to why the speed of light is what it is. The speed of light can be defined as 1 Planck length per 1 Planck second

Not quite. That may be a definition, but it is not a 'why' explanation. Planck time is itself defined by taking the Planck length and dividing by the speed of light. It's all very incestuous.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
The fastest any object could possibly travel without skipping any of the intervening space would be 1 Planck length/1 Planck second or ~186,000 MPS.

While that is intuitive the Planck length and time are both defined using the speed of light - so the argument is a bit circular.

What it does show is that the speed of light is a constant.

Now as for why it is 300000km/s (approximately) and not 310000km/s ... You can simply argue the other way around: Since it must have _some_ value then any one value is good enough. It's all also a bit arbitrary since you cannot reduce measurements to an absolute. There is no absolute definition of a meter or a second. At some point you just have to reduce it to an arbitrarily set constant (in our case we use the speed of light since it seems very constant).

To get an aboslute value we'd need an invariant yardstick which lies outside the universe to compare to. But that we don't have (and likely never will)
Javinator
4.7 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
Judas made his choices, God declared Judas' choices a long, long, time in advance.


If the choices can be declared that far in advance, then they've already been determined ahead of time and are not actually choices.

There can't be God's plan and free will. There's one or the other. It's a logical fallacy.
Argon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
@Javinator

I think you didn't get the deck of cards analogy! Let me recap: WE are the ones that shuffle our decks by the freewill choices that we make! Again, just because God knows how our decks are stacked doesn't mean that he stacked our decks. Now that aside, there is another game at play as well: the choices of other people! The choices of others have affected our lives, that is undeniable. However, at the same time our choices affect other people. Theae are matters of our abilities to to carry out our choices, which is not insured, but doesn't prevent the will of man, even though it can potentially cause a state of frustration. Example: some one cuts in front of you in the line you are standing in, you feel frustration, but you still have free will: you can remain in line, leave the line, yell and scream about it like a little kid, go and do some cutting of your own, and on and on it goes! So, other people having free will (including God) doesn't keep us from having our wills!
Argon
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 20, 2011
@Javinator

Now to address more of the issue of omniscience: let's suppose I know a person who every day at 6:00 pm smokes a cherry cigar, has done so for 50 years! Am I not able then, based on my limited knowledge, able to make a darn good prediction as to what he will be doing at 6:00 pm tomorrow? Of course! Now it may not happen, because he may drop dead of a heart attack at 5:59 pm, but now imagine that I had perfect knowledge of the future, well then, in that case, it would certainly happen. Now, for those skeptics who believe that the future is truely unknowable: let's suppose that you make the observation that the rotation of the earth is slowing down a little at a very small, but constant rate, now assuming the rate of slowing remains constant you can predict down to the day millions of years from now exactly when earth will have a rotation velocity, about its axis, of approximately zero! Will you live to see it? No! Will it happen anyway?

Look, my point: free will is!
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
If God (or anyone for that matter) knows the future exactly how it will happen, then the future is already determined and free will is an illusion. You can't have free will and determinism at the same time.

I'm not talking about predicting the future based on past experiences as you're suggesting with your cigar smoking analogy, but knowing with certainty what the future holds. Knowledge is not the same as a prediction. Knowledge is certain whereas a prediction has a chance of failure (although remote, the chance exists).

And I understood your cards analogy just fine, it wasn't valid for what we're discussing. A correct analogy for this discussion with cards would be to say the God knows how the deck is stacked before you've even begun to shuffle. Heck, he knows how they're stacked before you even thought of going to the store to buy the deck. If he knows that, then it was already determined that you were going to go buy the cards and your "choice" wasn't really a choice at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 20, 2011
Judas made his choices, God declared Judas' choices a long, long, time in advance.


If the choices can be declared that far in advance, then they've already been determined ahead of time...
I think what he is trying to say that according to his god, free will is an illusion that only his god is privy to. But according to everything we know about the universe and human nature, it appears that his god is most certainly an illusion.

As his god never rebuts, I think we can confidently conclude that the latter is the case. No matter what the Delusionist fArgon has to say.

His arguments in support of the existence of his god are based solely on the assumption that it exists. He has absolutely no other position to argue from. This must obviously be invalid, even to him.
There can't be God's plan and free will. There's one or the other. It's a logical fallacy.
Youre omitting the obvious 3rd choice. There can be neither. Our will is hopelessly compromised.
Argon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
Knowledge does not equal cause! Cause equals cause!

I know the earth is rotating, I know the sun is shining on my face, but my knowledge is not the cause of its occurence. I know I was born male, but knowing you are male is not the cause of your malehood, et al.

Somehow you think God's knowledge is the mover, while in reality God's knowledge is a privelidged observer of the motion before the motion has occurred! Watching someone build a house doesn't neccessarily make you the architect! It is also obvious that "God is not willing that any should perish" and yet he lets people choose to reject him, and like he already said there will be unpleasant consequences; Or rewards if obedience is the path we choose to walk!

The fallacy lies in the false assumption that the two are incompatable!
Argon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
@Javinator

"If God (or anyone for that matter) knows the future exactly how it will happen, then the future is already determined and free will is an illusion. You can't have free will and determinism at the same time."

Yes, the future is already determined, by the free will choices we will make in the future. It's no different than the past having been determined by the choices we made in the past! It's no different then the present being determined by the choices we are making right now! Knowing when any certain choice was made, is made, or will be made, does not change the fact that it is a CHOICE that was made BY the PERSON making THEIR choice!
Argon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
@Javinator

I should not neglect to include that the choices we make now can determine the future as well, at least in part. Example: you cut of your arm today, you won't have an arm tomorrow, if you didn't choose to believe in Jesus today and you die today, you will be in hell tomorrow. So the choices we make are of eternal significance: not something to neglect! Better get on the right choices before you run out of time and seal your eternal fate!
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
So, in your model argon, if I for example could look into the future (what you are saying god is doing?) and see the color i'm going to paint a painting, that WILL be the color i paint?

If the answer is that i will paint it that color and no other, then my future is already set in stone, and i will be unable to make different choices.

If the answer is that i can choose to paint it a different color, then how would god know which choice i will make before i've made it?

THESE are the questions that are keeping ME from understanding your point about free will. I believe they are the same questions the others are having too.

Please answer, i'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but i'm just not getting it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 20, 2011
Knowledge does not equal cause! Cause equals cause!
Blahblah?
but knowing you are male is not the cause of your malehood, et al
Blah??
Somehow you think God's knowledge is the mover, while in reality God's knowledge is a privelidged observer
No, in reality your god doesnt exist and so your entire line of reasoning is INVALID.
I know the earth is rotating, I know the sun is shining on my face
I also know these things. Additionally I KNOW your god doesnt exist. I know your god is a figment. He is a FABRICATION. Somebody made him up a long time ago to entice people like you with dreams of eternal ecstasy in paradise. And eternal torment for those who tell you this is nonsense.
Please answer, i'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but i'm just not getting it.
Hes saying, and I quote, "blahblahblah [sic]"
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2011
Consider this. Arogans god composed the universe. It also composed a number of books. ALL of these books fail miserably to describe the universe as it actually is.

Additionally, they all disagree with each other AND they are ALL rife with inconsistancies, errors, omissions, countless adulterations, and obvious lies.

What can we infer about argomemnons god and all similar such gods, godmen, geniis, gurus, prophets, and the lot? Exactly what sort of prescience or transcendent knowledge can we assume they possess, when NONE of them can even explain the universe the way it works TODAY?

Scientists may not know all there is to know, and they do make mistakes, as they are generally willing to admit. But they apparently know far more than god. All we have to do is read its books and compare what it says with what science has discovered, and what science can DO with that knowledge. God part the Red Sea*? I dont believe it could even boil water.

*actually yam suph, a reedy swamp somewhere-
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2011
So god drained a swamp. Saddam Hussein also drained a swamp, to get rid of marsh arabs. Does this mean we should be looking for god in a hole somewhere in someones backyard? A rhetorical question.

NO WAIT! Urethra I have found him! God works at a golf course. Bill murray is beelzebub.
http://www.youtub...amp;NR=1

Armageddon there at the end-
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
All stars [and galaxies etc.]were created on day 4 and it's beginning to show - via the physically observable evidence.


And, that is why I hate English translations of ancient texts. English translations so can be misleading at times. The Hebrew words underlying the text have so wide an application that context must govern.

Unfortunately, many translations do not let context govern, creating the false meaning of stars and sun and moon being created on the fourth day whereas other meanings may (and most likely) originally have been intended by the author(s).

So many wacky beliefs come about because we lose the meaning in translation. The creation of Genesis 1 is by no means a creation out of nothing. That is a false translation imposed onto the actual text because of the governance of theology rather than the actual meanings of the words in context.

Just saying... :)
Deesky
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
So many wacky beliefs come about because we lose the meaning in translation. The creation of Genesis 1 is by no means a creation out of nothing.

So what is it then?
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 20, 2011
THESE are the questions that are keeping ME from understanding your point about free will. I believe they are the same questions the others are having too.

Please answer, i'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say, but i'm just not getting it.

There's nothing to get. It's a logical fallacy, pure and simple. Argon's world view simply disallows him from seeing this and so he tries to justify his position through differently worded scenarios which, however, still don't pass the logical fallacy test. He will never acknowledge this.
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
@j-n

"So, in your model argon, if I for example could look into the future (what you are saying god is doing?) and see the color i'm going to paint a painting, that WILL be the color i paint?"

If that is the color you choose!

"If the answer is that i will paint it that color and no other, then my future is already set in stone, and i will be unable to make different choices."

The answer is you will paint it the color you choose and IF "no other" then you are UNWILLING, NOT unable, to make different choices!

"If the answer is that i can choose to paint it a different color, then how would god know which choice i will make before i've made it?"

God would know that you chose one color and then changed your mind for a different color, a color that he would also know: hence the omniscience! Just because you know you will make a decision and just because you know you will later change your mind doesn't change the fact that TWO choices were made: the one, then, the other!
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2011
@j-n

I have a question for you: why would God ask us to "make known your requests to God" if our prayers have no effect on his choices? It would be totally frustrating to the person praying, because it wouldn't matter! Now that's not to say that there are some things God is simply unwilling to change, in which case: find something else to pray about, obviously!
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (65) Jul 21, 2011
Why has no one ever regenerated a lost limb argon? Out of all the people in history that lost limbs, why would god not have restored one? A finger or toe even. Either god hates amputees or he doesn't exist.
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
@j-n you must realise that my "model" is only really meant to desribe ONE omniscient being: God! If you see a fallacy somewhere ask yourself about your assumptions to see if they are valid, then try it for only one omniscient being to see if it corrects the fallacy! Some arguements are foundationally fallacious while others are not, but appear so when invalid assumptions are applied to them! Like for example: if you plot a course on a map and don't take into consideration the curvature of the earth's surface and variations in altitude: a map is flat the world is not! It is so important for assumptions to be true when making calculations or the answers will be wrong and we will think they are right because we assume the assumptions are true!
That general principle applies to all endevours of knowledge: always check your assumptions and consider the consequences of believing your calculations if the assumptions turn out to be wrong! I've done that with the Bible! I choose to accept it!
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (65) Jul 21, 2011
You know, ending every sentence with an exclamation point isn't really considered good form. Just thought you'd like to know.

Your ratio of exclamation points to periods is seemingly exactly the opposite of the typical person. Are you high on christ or something (meth)?
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

"Why has no one ever regenerated a lost limb argon? Out of all the people in history that lost limbs, why would god not have restored one? A finger or toe even. Either god hates amputees or he doesn't exist."

Does an ear count? Luke 22:48-51
Argon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

"Your ratio of exclamation points to periods is seemingly exactly the opposite of the typical person."

Being atypical isn't neccessarily a bad thing!:)
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2011
If you strip away god from the equation, this is nothing other than the old debate about free will. Do we have it or not? Ultimately this a philosophical question that cannot be answered, even though almost everyone will say that they have free will because it feels that way.

But when you bring god into the picture and assert that he is omniscient and knows what will happen, then the question is no longer philosophical but (pre)deterministic.
Argon
2 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2011
@Deesky

"But when you bring god into the picture and assert that he is omniscient and knows what will happen, then the question is no longer philosophical but (pre)deterministic."

Very good observation. I gave your post five stars.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (65) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

"Why has no one ever regenerated a lost limb argon? Out of all the people in history that lost limbs, why would god not have restored one? A finger or toe even. Either god hates amputees or he doesn't exist."

Does an ear count? Luke 22:48-51


From the bible? No. Please find in the medical literature someone that has regenerated a limb, digit, or if you can manage it, an ear.
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
So many wacky beliefs come about because we lose the meaning in translation. The creation of Genesis 1 is by no means a creation out of nothing.

So what is it then?


Well, for one thing, if the Bible is to be believed (and many would say it is not worth the effort but we can ignore that opinion for now for the sake of argument), the creation came out of chaotic matter.

Context and usage of the words in the Hebrew creation account (which are ignored in many of the commentaries because it does not fit later theology) show that there was no concept of creatio ex nihilo among the Hebrews at the time of the compiling and writing of the biblical texts.

History shows that the belief in creation out of nothing came centuries later under the influence of the later Greek philosophers. The earlier one goes, before the second century for example, the concept of "creation from nothing" does not exist in the oldest Jewish and Christian texts.

Translators have to slant it in.
Argon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

"Why has no one ever regenerated a lost limb argon? Out of all the people in history that lost limbs, why would god not have restored one? A finger or toe even. Either god hates amputees or he doesn't exist."

Does an ear count? Luke 22:48-51


From the bible? No. Please find in the medical literature someone that has regenerated a limb, digit, or if you can manage it, an ear.


Ok:
http://www.ncbi.n...0032.pdf

OK again:
http://uuu.mindte...gers.pdf
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (67) Jul 21, 2011
Seriously man? Did I really have to add the qualifier that it can't be an innate human ability? Really? Like it wasn't obvious? Really? Are you trying to be cute?

So I guess if I cut my hair and it grows back that's a miracle, right? Fingernails too. That paper cut healed, musta been a miracle.

You're a jackass.
Argon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

The whole point of Luke 22:48-51 is that regeneration IS a miracle! What did you expect: our heads don't grow back when they get chopped off.

Just more proof that we didn't evolve from the lower animals. For example: worms, starfish, geckos, salamanders, et al.

So, I have a question for you: what do you really care about?

By the way, I do admire your sense of humor: you hit my funny bone with that last post:)

FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (65) Jul 21, 2011
The point is miracles are something that religious people believe are real phenomena. This bolsters their faith. By miracles I am talking about divine intervention usually invoked by prayer.

Miracles are things that though unlikely aren't astronomically impossible. Cancers spontaneously heal. Diseases can work themselves out in unexpected fashions.

Limbs don't regenerate. No person has ever regenerated a limb. Why wouldn't god have restored someones limb? Would it be too conspicuous a use of his power? Wouldn't any 'miracle' be though?

If it's so obvious that certain miracles are performed by god, then why wouldn't he do REALLY obvious stuff like regenerate a limb (or reattach a head)? If miracles actually happen it's not like god is trying to hide his presence, so that can't be why he doesn't restore limbs.

Is the loss of a limb something that only happens to bad people?

If not then is losing a limb itself what is drawing gods ire?

Or does he hate amputees?

Or he doesn't exist.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (67) Jul 21, 2011
Just more proof that we didn't evolve from the lower animals. For example: worms, starfish, geckos, salamanders, et al.


Actually both those articles you cited support this. Humans have -most- of the genes necessary for regenerating body parts, which does suggest we share a common ancestor with these species. For one, children do have the ability to a limited extent which is lost with age. Two, medical scientists are actually able to coax these genes into activation in adults, something god has yet to do.
Deesky
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2011
Just more proof that we didn't evolve from the lower animals. For example: worms, starfish, geckos, salamanders, et al.

That's true. We evolved from a common ancestor, downstream from the species you mention.

So, I have a question for you: what do you really care about?

I care about education and rational thought or skeptical thinking. If you're armed with those attributes, you stand a much better chance in being a positive force in the world then if your mind is clouded by wooly thinking.
Argon
2 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2011
@FrankHerbert

"Is the loss of a limb something that only happens to bad people?"

Here is an article that sounds like it was written for your question:

http://www.answer...amputees
Argon
1 / 5 (1) Jul 21, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

"Translators have"

Concerning Bible translations:
http://faithfulwo...406a.mp3
Javinator
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
Argon,

"So, in your model argon, if I for example could look into the future (what you are saying god is doing?) and see the color i'm going to paint a painting, that WILL be the color i paint?"

If that is the color you choose!


I have trouble accepting that you don't see the logical fallacy here.

Free will implies that every decision could have multiple outcomes and gives an infinite number of possibilities for the future.

If there is only one path/future that WILL happen (the one you say God can see), then there is no free will, just a series of things that all happened in sequence relating to one another from the beginning on time.

Breaking it down:
Free will: -infinite possibilities for the future
God knowing the future: -one possibility for the future

You can't have one known future and an infinite number of possible futures at the same time. That's not an assumption. That's simple logic. 1 does not equal infinity.
Javinator
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
I'm not advocating for or against determinism or free will in this discussion. That's not what this debate is about.

I'm showing that there's a logical fallacy present when you advocate that there is free will and yet one known path for the future at the same time.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2011
...chose one color and then changed your mind for a different color, a color that he would also know: hence the omniscience!
Hence the logic of faith: as god can do anything, I don't have to use logic when explaining his workings. Heck, I can say anything I want about god because he knows I love him and my intentions are good. Even though illogic IS self-deception. After all it's not even me speaking; it's god putting words into my mouth.
That general principle applies to all endevours of knowledge: always check your assumptions and consider the consequences of believing your calculations if the assumptions turn out to be wrong! I've done that with the Bible! I choose to accept it!
Translation: I have weighed the consequences of NOT believing what god says. This trumps ANY further doubts about the efficacy of what I might find in his book. After all I might go to HELL!

-This is the excuse for all manner of evil done in gods name. Because they all want to live forever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2011
Forgive me. That's 'They all want to live happily ever after'. Everyone deserves their fairytales to end pleasantly, but how can they when the last line is always 'Then they shriveled and died and were soon forgotten like all the people they ever cared about'?

But this is the world. This is the Reality of the human condition. 'The valley of the Shadow of Death'. Only an all-powerful god who lives in a great and glorious cathedral can deliver us from it. Because a book, and some very serious-looking people, Promise us that this is indeed the case.

So, as argon concludes, it is far more important NOT to mess with this Promise. The consequences are not however the forfeit of eternal joy in the next life, but the return of dread and terror to this one. The Drug wears off, the Pain returns.
Argon
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 21, 2011
@Javinator

"I have trouble accepting that you don't see the logical fallacy here."

I have trouble convincing you that the logical fallacy lies not in God's omniscience, nor in free will, but in your assumption that the two cannot coexist! I am growing tired of trying to convince you. So then, let me leave you with my closing thoughts on the argument:

Firstly, if God can declare what will come to pass in the distant future, to people of the distant past, then God is omniscient!

Secondly, if every man determines his own beliefs and every man's own beliefs will determine his own eternal future, then every man has free will!

Finally, if God, in his omniscience, declares to people in the distant past, that every man determines his own beliefs and every man's own beliefs will determine his own eternal future, then God is omniscient and every man has free will!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2011
We also neglect to mention another invaluable Service that argons god can provide. And that is retribution against all those who have maligned argon. Because eternal peace in heaven will not be complete unless the devout know that their enemies are suffering eternally in hell.

Resentment is a miserable weight to bear. It is another unique consequence of being human; we can picture our enemies gloating over our defeat and their victory. Tribes whose members would endeavor to exact revenge upon their enemies would also tend to prevail.

We were thus selected for long memories and enduring emotions. Elephants never forget. Orcas never forget. And humans NEVER forget. "Friends come and go; enemies accumulate."

This has left us with a relentless desire for revenge. This resentment will poison our lives, drag us down, and lead us to ruin.
cont
J-n
5 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
Maybe this logical argument will help. It's called theological Fatalisim (look it up it might help).

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of infallibility]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of necessary]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

You see if god is Omniscient, and Infallible and can see what you WILL do.. then.. the above is the logical solution.

If you would like a longer explanation i can provide that as well, and if any part of this is confusing i can explain. Unfortunately, though, logic shows that Free Will and Infallible foreknowledge cannot co-exist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2011
Argons god however has graciously offered to assume the role of Punisher for us. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rom5:12

-What a relief this is! We can sleep easier knowing that justice WILL at last be done. Psalms is full of this. One of my favorites:

"For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup. The punishment of the wicked is prepared, God himself holds it in readiness; he has collected and concocted woes most dread, and in the chalice of his wrath he holds it. They scoffed his feast of love; they shall be dragged to his table of justice, and made to drink their due deserts.

"And the wine is red. The retribution is terrible, it is blood for blood, foaming vengeance for foaming malice. The very colour of divine wrath is terrible; what must the taste be?" Psm75

-You will pay for your sins AND SO WILL THEY. One is a threat, the other a promise. There can be no heaven WITHOUT hell. Right argon?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2011
What? Argon says that the xian god is not about revenge? The xian god promises one in conjunction with the other. They are INSEPERABLE.

"16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of Gods one and only Son.

19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20All those who do evil hate the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21But those who live by the truth come into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." john3

-The love guru is also a vengence demon. Arent they all?
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
Firstly, if God can declare what will come to pass in the distant future, to people of the distant past, then God is omniscient!


if god can declare what will come to pass then god could for example map out what every persons choices WILL be. Therefore you cannot and will not make any other choices or god would be wrong, and because god is infallible god cannot be wrong. Which means that there is no Free Will in your model because all the choices you will make are already determined.

If time travel was possible in your Model, one could go to the future see what was going to happen, but no matter what you did in the present would change that because what has been determined (seen by god) to happen in the future will happen in the future, no matter what you do, because god cannot be wrong.

Painting example:
If god saw in the future that i was going to paint it red, no matter what happens i will paint it red. Therefore I CANNOT choose any differently. No choice = No Free will.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2011
Which means that there is no Free Will in your model because all the choices you will make are already determined.
8 "Remember this, keep it in mind,
take it to heart, you rebels.
9 Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
10 I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say, My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please." Isaiah46

-And religionists will think as they please. And this is why you cannot argue logic with them and expect to get anywhere, because their superstitions are devoid of logic. They fully accepted this lack when they chose to believe.

It is useful, however, for others to see logic being used as it helps to strengthen their resolve to resist religion.
Skepticus_Rex
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

"Translators have"

Concerning Bible translations:
http://faithfulwo...406a.mp3


Interesting if fiery sermon filled with spouted off rants and false information. Fact: The 1611 King James Bible also is a translation. It also has the same kinds of problems as all other translations, and some a little worse because of its age. In addition, the KJV is not only a translation all its own, but is in reality a revision of an "already good" translation, known as the Bishop's Bible, to "make a better translation."

You should read the original preface to the KJV, "From the Translators to the Reader." It is an eye-opener, if carefully read. And, I can prove to you that you likely are not even using the 1611 KJV. The vast majority of people are not using the 1611 KJV, but the 1769 Blayney Revision.

You are using the 1611 KJV ONLY IF Mark 10:18 reads this way:
And Iesus said vnto him, Why callest thou me good? There is no man good, but one, that is God.
Skepticus_Rex
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
I neglected to mention that in several cases portions of the KJV are multiply translated across several languages, and some passages are even translated from a Latin text where the Greek text was lacking.

In the book of Revelation, for example, text was back-translated. The manuscript that was used by Erasmus and others for Revelation was lacking portions of the last chapter. So, what Erasmus did was to back-translate the Latin Vulgate for this section of text into Greek and then that translation was translated into English. There are variants in that translated text that can be found in no Greek manuscript anywhere.

It gets worse. There are passages in the KJV for which not a single ancient Greek manuscript out of thousands has them. One of the best known of these is the passage at 1 John 5:7-8. Not one ancient Greek manuscript contains it. No other ancient version of the Bible has it before the 7th century CE.

As to John 7:53-8:11, none of the Gk manuscripts before 600 CE have it.
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
Finally, Argon, you might get a kick out of this website.

http://www.kjv-on...aid.html

I recommend you visit it and read the entire preface, "The Translators to the Reader," which also can be found there.
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 21, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

You may find this site interesting:
http://www.jesus-...only.htm
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2011
No other ancient version of the Bible has it before the 7th century CE.
You know I hate to say it but I think we have here proof of gods omniscience. For how could he sign off at the end of the bible with the admonition:

"18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." rev22

-if he didn't himself know he was going to have to change it at a later date? And what are we supposed to do with all the earlier versions which are similarly signed, as god did not make them evaporate as you would expect -?

He did not include instructions for this.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 21, 2011
@argon

Did you even look over Skepticus' link?

"The Translators To The Reader" is the preface of the original KJV published in 1611. In it I find some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism around. What makes these arguments even stronger is that they came from the KJV translators themselves.


The translators themselves said it wasn't the be all, end all translation. How thick do you have to be?
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 21, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

You may find this site interesting:
http://www.jesus-...only.htm


Thank you. Brought smiles to my face several times while reading. Now, my cheeks hurt and I almost spurted milk at my monitor through my nose after reading a couple points. I'd love to comment further...where to begin? :)
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
@argon

Did you even look over Skepticus' link?

"The Translators To The Reader" is the preface of the original KJV published in 1611. In it I find some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism around. What makes these arguments even stronger is that they came from the KJV translators themselves.


The translators themselves said it wasn't the be all, end all translation. How thick do you have to be?


The problem is that most KJV-Only Bible-thumpers do not have this preface in their bibles. Most of them never have read even a sentence from the preface nor want to do so.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (65) Jul 21, 2011
It'll be great when we are finally all Christians, and we can get down to the real business of killing each other over what version of the Bible we use.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 21, 2011
It'll be great when we are finally all Christians, and we can get down to the real business of killing each other over what version of the Bible we use.
Exactly. It'll be the 30 Years War all over again. And they were only disputing interpretations of one version.
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (4) Jul 21, 2011
Well, let's look at an example from the KJV site referenced above. Much is made of italics being placed there by the translators, and an example of Deuteronomy 8:3 compared to Matthew 4:4 is made, further positing the claim that the translators were honest in their placement of italics, and that perhaps the originals, which no longer exist, actually had the word underlying italicized "word" there because Jesus quotes it.

1. The KJV of 1611 actually differs from the 1769 Blayney Revision in the use of italics in a number of places. This is not the case here but something to notice is that the italicized "word" is there needlessly.

2. The Hebrew phraseology does not allow for it to have ever been there. Literal translation of the Hebrew is "upon-all-going forth." "Word" neither is needed nor permissible by the textual structure.

3. A later writer took Greek Septuagint text and put it into the mouth of Jesus by inserting it into the New Testament. A word underlying "word" is in Greek.
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 22, 2011
Argon,

For an interesting comparison of use of italics from the original KJV 1611, go here:

http://www.light-...on13.jpg

Now, pull open your KJV and notice that it has italics whereas the original KJV of 1611 has no italics in these verses. The later 1769 Blayney Revision of the KJV put the italics into the printed text. They were not put there by the translators at first.

Something to think about...

Now, as to the subject matter of the above article, I find it interesting as well. It should be interesting as to where the new information leads us in attempting to understand our universe.
Deesky
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2011
I don't see what is the point of quibbling about the accuracy of translations of various religious texts. At the end of the day, whatever the original or intended meaning was, it's wholly irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is scientific discovery. So basically, who gives a crap?
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
Who gives a crap? Some. The whole point of the exercise is to deal out facts that show that there are problems with translations of ancient texts, and that these problematic translations in wisdom should not be taken as a basis for rejection of science in favor of teachings derived from said problematic texts.

So, in that sense it is quite relevant to the discussion. Otherwise, I never would have brought it up in the first place. :)
Skepticus_Rex
3 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
Finally, to finish my point on the use of italics by the translators of the original KJV. Fact is, they did not actually use what we call italics. What they did was to use a differing font face with a slightly smaller point size.

But, that said, even in many texts of the Bible their use of textual markers of this type does not agree with the current renderings of the Blayney Revision used by most American and British Christians who use it.

Further evidence can be seen by blowing up (using a program like Irfanview or Photoshop) the following image of a page from the 1611 KJV and comparing it to the current KJV text. Note carefully the several differences. It is like this throughout the entire KJV.

http://greatsite....f_KJ.jpg
JohnMoser
3 / 5 (6) Jul 22, 2011
"The most distant objects in the universe are also the oldest -- or at least that is how they appear to us"

Actually, they appear very young to us.
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
"The most distant objects in the universe are also the oldest -- or at least that is how they appear to us"

Actually, they appear very young to us.


Amen.
Skepticus
3.8 / 5 (5) Jul 23, 2011
I wonder why we keep educating basic science to religious nutcases who have no intention whatsoever to move on from their Stone Age mindset. An utter waste of neuronic activity.
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

Another gem concerning translations:
http://www.youtub...TQ6EXJrI

Bring an umbrella, or better yet, a canteen, because it's certainly going to rain!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2011
Here you go pleasant happy godlover. Read the news today?

"By time he was arrested Friday evening, Breivik is believed to have killed 84 people on the island of Utoeya and at least seven in the Oslo bombing.

"Norwegian police describe Breivik as a conservative, right-wing extremist and a Christian fundamentalist. Norwegian media ... describe him as a conservative and nationalist. His views are hard to characterize. He appears to hate communists and Muslims and harbors right-wing views. But he is not a neo-Nazi."

-This is the kind of thing that love for your god can compel people to do. Just one crazy loner? Perhaps. But we have such a long list of them. Koresh, McVey, Jones, Jeffs, bin laden et al. And when they get together we get Taliban, Tamil Tigers, Lords Resistance Army, etc.

'But xians are not like this! Our god is love!' Youre so drugged up on jesus that you fail to realize all the horror YOU all cause by your selfishness. This blood is on YOUR hands.
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

I think your personal attack on ME, for something someone else did, doesn't reflect well on you, AT ALL!
Argon
1 / 5 (2) Jul 23, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

If you don't show me a little more respect in future posts, I will not waste my time responding to you, AT ALL. Do you understand? I'm just letting you know that, right now.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2011
@TheGhostofOtto1923

If you don't show me a little more respect in future posts, I will not waste my time responding to you, AT ALL. Do you understand? I'm just letting you know that, right now.
Sounds like otto is plucking nerves, wot? You are only the current target of opportunity. You are typical of most close-minded self-deceptionists. No god here to make you feel special.

Read other threads - other antis treat other religionists and what they have to SAY exactly the same way. Sorry if it ruffles your composure.

Face your delusion and ACCEPT all the trouble it causes. Pray to your conscience for forgiveness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 23, 2011
"One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests." -John stewart mill, as posted on the norwegian fundamentalist mass-murderer Anders Breivik's twitter page.

-That and 6 tons of fertilizer and a few hundred rounds of ammo.
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

Another gem concerning translations:
http://www.youtub...TQ6EXJrI

Bring an umbrella, or better yet, a canteen, because it's certainly going to rain!


I watched this craptacular video and was less than impressed. So, the guy reads Romanian, German and Spanish. None of these are Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I've got news for you, Argon, I consulted THE SAME Greek text that was used by the translators of the KJV.

In most references that this so-called pastor gives, the New King James Version actually has the translation from the Greek text right and the KJV is wrong.

One example (maybe more if I feel like it and if others can stomach it): John 1:3 in the KJV and NKJV do differ. But, the Greek word di', elided from dia, does mean "through" here, not "by" as the KJV has. It is the same virtually throughout.

In fairness, where it fails is that KJV English "by" actually means "through" or "by means of" here. English mng changed.
FroShow
not rated yet Jul 23, 2011
There are too many comments here to actually read through them. Not to mention that the majority of them (first several I labored through) don't contribute in any way to the goals set out by this website. So, let me put things simply:
READ THE FREAKING COMMENTS GUIDELINES!!!
Skepticus_Rex
2.2 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
On his example of Matthew 7:14, he lets theology get in the way rather than taking the text at its statement. Remember, I am using the selfsame Greek text that the KJV translators used.

The Greek word the KJV translates "narrow" is not really an adjective as current English appears to make the KJV say, and the word did not really get the meaning across that comes from the Greek tethlimmene, from the root thlibo. This is a verb of action in the Greek.

It means to press upon or crowd, to make narrow, and also carries meanings of oppress, and afflict in the passive sense. It impresses the difficulty of walking the narrow path because of so many people pushing their way through.

It agrees with Jesus' comment in Luke 13:23-24. "Strive" in the KJV gives only part of the sense of the meaning of the Greek, which is "to work your butt off" (I am paraphrasing but that is the clear meaning of this term used to describe suffering agony in the Greek and Roman games where the strongest survived).
Skepticus_Rex
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 23, 2011
For the so-called pastor's example of 1 Corinthians 1:18, once again, the NKJV is more correct than than the KJV. However, that is partly because of a change in the English language.

The Greek text actually does say what the NKJV says in English. The word in question is sozomenois, which is the present, passive, participle derived from the verb meaning "to save" (Classical Greek Lexicons) or "I save" (most NT Greek Lexicons).

If the word is the present, passive participle, it means "ones who are being saved" in the passage, contra the KJV's meaning made mistaken via change in the English language.

For the record, the NKJV uses the same Greek text used by the translators of the KJV.
Skepticus_Rex
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2011
The so-called pastor's example of 1 Corinthians 1:21 is ridiculous, especially because it ignores the context of a couple verses previous. The NKJV reads pretty much like the KJV except for using the more current meaning that matches the Greek, "through" in the text.

"Through the foolishness of the message" is the correct rendering of the Greek here.

Moral of the story? Don't reject science because a faulty translation or a translation made obsolete and faulty by changes in the English language is preferred for theological reasons over clarity of meaning. Badly translated texts should never form the bases for rejection of the science. They have no bearing on the validity of the science in the above article.
Argon
2 / 5 (4) Jul 23, 2011
@Skepticus Rex

This article has many posts: so for the sake of the topic of the article vs our translations rabbit trails let us move OUR further posts, on them, to PMs; I'll get back to you.
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
I was about to suggest the same thing since I wrote a point-by-point discussion of the last link you provided. I wanted to spare everybody else that discussion. My closing remarks above said what I intended to have said at the end.

Anyone interested in receiving the text of that response, PM me. Everyone else, consider yourselves spared further discussion on this side-discussion.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (66) Jul 24, 2011
Here you go pleasant happy godlover. Read the news today?

"By time he was arrested Friday evening, Breivik is believed to have killed 84 people on the island of Utoeya and at least seven in the Oslo bombing.

"Norwegian police describe Breivik as a conservative, right-wing extremist and a Christian fundamentalist. Norwegian media ... describe him as a conservative and nationalist. His views are hard to characterize. He appears to hate communists and Muslims and harbors right-wing views. But he is not a neo-Nazi."

-This is the kind of thing that love for your god can compel people to do. Just one crazy loner? Perhaps. But we have such a long list of them. Koresh, McVey, Jones, Jeffs, bin laden et al. And when they get together we get Taliban, Tamil Tigers, Lords Resistance Army, etc.

'But xians are not like this! Our god is love!' Youre so drugged up on jesus that you fail to realize all the horror YOU all cause by your selfishness. This blood is on YOUR hands.


Preach it!
omatumr
1 / 5 (3) Jul 24, 2011
We live in very interesting times.

All of these events fit together.

Let's try to figure it out.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2011
I was about to suggest the same thing since I wrote a point-by-point discussion of the last link you provided. I wanted to spare everybody else that discussion. My closing remarks above said what I intended to ...
Religionists will continue to leave belief-oriented comments in these threads. Any time someone takes the trouble to counter their nonsense with facts, it gives others additional info to be used against them in the future. It can also encourage founders to cast off their faith.

As such SR I would encourage you to keep your discussions public. You perform a valuable community service. Every time a religionist tries to respond they display their paucity.

As long as the mods don't object it should not be a problem. But it's certainly up to you. Most people understand the threat that religion poses to science and know this is a fight well worth fighting. They should be exposed and discredited whenever and wherever they surface.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 24, 2011
Founders = doubters; spellcheck
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
Thanks for the messages.

The history (1945-2011) of consensus science, global climate concerns, and the current economic and social unrest from the perspective of a space scientist leads to very unpleasant but inescapable conclusions:

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

http://dl.dropbox...oots.doc

Please let me know if you can offer more palatable conclusions.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
ZachB
3 / 5 (2) Jul 24, 2011
Why does everything come down to God or NO God? Who cares? Don't you all realize that my god laughs at your god from his mountain, but my god looks down on your mountain from the sky?...Can't we all agree, at least, that the shinny thing in the night sky is really awesome! Now lets get past our differences and slay the evil lord and his pet snake! Golly!
omatumr
1 / 5 (4) Jul 24, 2011
Why does everything come down to God or NO God?


I agree. That is a senseless, ego-driven argument.

The great Reality that surrounds and sustains us does not depend on the name we assign it - God, Universe, Higher Power, Cosmos, Krishna, Jahova, Yahweh, etc. - nor the method used to detect it - experimentation, meditation, observation, reflection, prayer, sound, sight, prayer, etc.

You may discovered Reality one way, others may discover Reality another.

Dogmatic scientists and dogmatic religionists are identical twins hiding under different cloaks of respectability.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
You are a pathetic man oliver. The thread has nothing to do with your little its all a conspiracy blah blah blah nonsense. you go off topic so do i. from the university you cant vistit anymore-
Dr. Oliver Manuel Sr., Professor Emeritus of Chemistry and former chair of the UMR Chemistry Department, was arrested Tuesday, May 30 in his office at UMR for two felony counts of rape, four counts of sodomy, and one count of attempted sodomy. The crimes allegedly occurred from 1967 to 1990 at various locations in Phelps County. Some of the acts allegedly occurred on University property.

Hev
5 / 5 (1) Jul 25, 2011
Thought this was supposed to be a website for science, not a forum for raving loonies.
Wilhelmus
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 25, 2011
Read my article on :
The Scientific God Journal :
www.scigod.com/in...115/135/
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
Wilhelmus
1 / 5 (2) Jul 25, 2011
sorry the site is :
http://www.scigod.../115/135
have a nice time reading
wilhelmus
jsdarkdestruction
not rated yet Jul 26, 2011
No thank you. I read about half and ive got better things to do than read the rest of your crazy theory. I'll pass.
Wilhelmus
1 / 5 (2) Jul 26, 2011
I understand that 9 pages of text is a lot, if you read half and call it crazy, perhaps you are right from your point of view, but anyway thank you for your time.
The theory however is not so crazy , when I accept that the Fondamental Questions Institute FQXi has published it as an essay participating on their Essay contest, it ended up halfway the 162 participants, not bad for a non physisists.
Science is after 60 years of searching at the limits of its possibillities, my theory is just one of it, the ULTIMATE TRUTH does not exist.

keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 26, 2011
Why does everything come down to God or NO God?
It doesnt. God the delusion is irrelevant. Religion is the problem and the thing which will destroy the world unless it is ended, cast off, exposed for the EVIL that it is and the EVIL it makes people do in the name of goodness.

The norwegian religionist:

"Breivik... is not a "fundamentalist" in that sense. Though he does identify with American cultural Christian conservatives. And he considers himself to be fighting in the name of "our Christian cultural heritage." He supports a reconstituted Knights Templar devoted to winning a war against Islam in the name of Christianity."

"Ending multiculturalism and expelling foreign influences are key goals in his vision. Yet it is remarkable how Breivik's worldview mirrors that of his principal enemies -- the jihadists' own discourse: the role of martyrs in igniting widespread support..."

-It will only get worse.

"Suspected Taliban insurgents hanged an eight-year-old boy..."