Author Topic: A different look at it  (Read 32248 times)

Offline Valis

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 96
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2013, 03:08:55 AM »
You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light.
For the latter, the first "thing" would probably be quark-gluon plasma (though in the inflationary models, the plasma is preceded by the inflaton field and an existing space/space-time).

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2013, 09:18:34 AM »
You know, the Bible and the Big Bang theory both agree on at least one fundamental. The first 'thing' in the universe was light.

Uh, no. The first thing God created was the heavens and the Earth. We know there was light 9 billion years before the Earth was formed so Genesis got the order wrong. The Earth was created complete with liquid water. How the water remained liquid without heat from the Sun is not explained.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2013, 02:24:36 PM »
Eh, my bad. Sorry about that.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2013, 04:29:56 PM »
I recently encountered an astronomer who equated Genesis to the Krakatoa explosion.  The rationale was that Krakatoa caused the population to dwindle and in turn forced interbreeding with Neanderthal's which gave humans larger heads at birth thus causing the painful childbearing as mentioned in the Bible.  Such comparisons are fraught with forced fitting problems.

BTW, is there a more descriptive word or commonly used phrase for the trait of trying to force one idea into another.  Other than the square peg round hole analogy.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Nowhere Man

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2013, 10:32:09 PM »
Krakatoa?  Perhaps he meant Toba?  At any rate, the Toba population-bottleneck theory is not accepted by everyone in that field.

And why would a population reduction force interbreeding with Neanderthals?  He may be an astronomer, but he's not a geologist or a biologist.

Fred
Hey, you!  "It's" with an apostrophe means "it is" or "it has."  "Its" without an apostrophe means "belongs to it."

"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: A different look at it
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2013, 08:40:15 AM »
Krakatoa?  Perhaps he meant Toba?  At any rate, the Toba population-bottleneck theory is not accepted by everyone in that field.

And why would a population reduction force interbreeding with Neanderthals?  He may be an astronomer, but he's not a geologist or a biologist.

Fred
It was a rambling expatiation of her faith given during a discussion on the intersection of science and religion.  She worked very hard to force fit many events into a confused understanding of Genesis. It is possible that I mis-remembered which volcano she mentioned. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett