genesis made simple

[cormac mac airt]

Ok--- how about you explain to me what is meant in the text, where it says:

"Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. So God mad the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."

Which "waters" are "the deep" -- those above the expanse, or those below the expanse?

I have a better idea. How about you actually showing that "the deep" refers to the universe as opposed to the earth, specifically, which is what it says. And which is where you're attempt to equate the Biblical narative of creation with the Big Bang falls flat on its face

cormac

.

[danielost]

That's so sad, it's hilarious.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsatod/g/brane.htm

Once again, it's not biological in nature as is the one to which you're confusing it with.

cormac

You need to reread the highlighted part. You know the part where it says brane theory is short for membrane.

As I said the only thing that has a permiment membrane is life. Is the universe a life form. It is ok with me if it is, since it has no direct bareing on me either way.

[danielost]

I have a better idea. How about you actually showing that "the deep" refers to the universe as opposed to the earth, specifically, which is what it says. And which is where you're attempt to equate the Biblical narative of creation with the Big Bang falls flat on its face

cormac

.

I think the part where good said let there be light and then him seperating the light from the dark is dealing with the universe. Or maybe the part where he made the stars to shine on earth.

[Jack Skellington]

cormac wrote:

I have a better idea. How about you actually showing that "the deep" refers to the universe as opposed to the earth, specifically, which is what it says. And which is where you're attempt to equate the Biblical narative of creation with the Big Bang falls flat on its face

Goose, goose..... Duck. That's okay. I didn't really expect an explanation from you, despite your conviction that "the deep" is simply the waters on the surface of the earth.

How about the expanse of the sky?

Look at what the text says "the sky" consists of... Lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day and night--- two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the night. He also made the stars. He set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and night and to separate light from darkness.

The sun, moon and stars---- in the sky. And the waters that were separated were above the sky.

But please---- tell me about your big brane.

Where did the branes that collided, come from?

Edited November 15, 2013 by Jack Skellington

[cormac mac airt]

You need to reread the highlighted part. You know the part where it says brane theory is short for membrane.

As I said the only thing that has a permiment membrane is life. Is the universe a life form. It is ok with me if it is, since it has no direct bareing on me either way.

Which tells me that English Comprehension is not your strong suit, as a 'membrane' in Brane Theory is not biological in nature.

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

cormac wrote:

Goose, goose..... Duck. That's okay. I didn't really expect an explanation from you, despite your conviction that "the deep" is simply the waters on the surface of the earth.

How about the expanse of the sky?

Look at what the text says "the sky" consists of... Lights in the expanse of the sky to separate day and night--- two great lights, the greater to govern the day and the lesser to govern the night. He also made the stars. He set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and night and to separate light from darkness.

The sun, moon and stars---- in the sky. And the waters that were separated were above the sky.

But please---- tell me about your big brane.

Where did the branes that collided, come from?

In other words you've got nothing. You just want to rant because you don't or can't understand the difference between the Biblical narative and the Big Bang Theory. The former of which is predominantly about the origins of the earth and the latter of which is about the origins of the universe. Or would you like to now claim that our sun was the first star in our galaxy to give light? If so, that would be embarrassing for you.

cormac

[Jack Skellington]

Yawn...

Cormac mac airt-- you rudely interrupt and demand attention, so I give it to you. You demand explanations and answers so I offer them. If you truly wanted to learn something or really wanted to understand something or if you were at all interested in even considering something other than your own narrow point of view, then you would have a conversation. Instead you huff and puff, and refuse to answer questions put to you.

It's like trying to discuss music with the deaf, or a beautiful landscape with one blind since birth.

Actually it's like trying to discuss poetry with someone who is ignorant.

So be well. Peace to you brother. Jump back in when you have something to offer.

[cormac mac airt]

Yawn...

Cormac mac airt-- you rudely interrupt and demand attention, so I give it to you. You demand explanations and answers so I offer them. If you truly wanted to learn something or really wanted to understand something or if you were at all interested in even considering something other than your own narrow point of view, then you would have a conversation. Instead you huff and puff, and refuse to answer questions put to you.

It's like trying to discuss music with the deaf, or a beautiful landscape with one blind since birth.

Actually it's like trying to discuss poetry with someone who is ignorant.

So be well. Peace to you brother. Jump back in when you have something to offer.

You've offered absolutely nothing in the way of a meaningful understanding of the phrase "the deep", which was specifically in reference to the earth in Genesis 1:2. Then you rail against science due to that lack of understanding. From my perspective if you can't even understand the context of what was written in the Biblical narrative then it's highly doubtful IMO than you're remotely equipped to understand anything dealing with theoretical physics and the Big Bang Theory.

cormac

[danielost]

Which tells me that English Comprehension is not your strong suit, as a 'membrane' in Brane Theory is not biological in nature.

cormac

It doesn't say it isn't biological in nature.

My point is the only membranes that re sustanable are biological in nature. All other membranes pop over time. So again will you answer my question could the universe be a life form. If not why not.

[cormac mac airt]

It doesn't say it isn't biological in nature.

My point is the only membranes that re sustanable are biological in nature. All other membranes pop over time. So again will you answer my question could the universe be a life form. If not why not.

Which tells me that the definition of 'brane" is way over your head, since in theoretical physics a brane has nothing to do with anything of a biological nature. It's a dimensional construct, not a biological one. So the obvious answer is that no, the universe is not a life form.

cormac

Edited November 15, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[danielost]

So biological life has no dimention. Ok I got you.

[cormac mac airt]

So biological life has no dimention. Ok I got you.

You're making it painfully obvious that Brane Theory and the definition of Brane are so far beyond your understanding that you continue to mix concepts. Biological life in this universe, as far as we know, exists in 3 dimensions (4 if you include Time). These 3 (again 4 including Time) dimensions are part of what theoretical physicists believe comrise 11th dimensional space-time for the universe, with the possibility that multiple universes "can" exist but not necessarily that they "do". Absolutely nothing in Brane Theory refers to biological life. Nor should "brane/membrane" in the theoretical physics sense be confused with "membrane" in the biological sense. An example of what you were doing earlier is much like comparing the biological membrane between cells with the clear plastic cover* on a store-bought toothbrush. Would you say the clear plastic cover is biological? I wouldn't.

* such items can also be considered "membranes" and have even been referred to as such in my experience.

cormac

Edited November 15, 2013 by cormac mac airt

[danielost]

I stand by my statement and question. I will give an out. It is ok to say I don't know if the universe is a life form or not, I don't. But if it is a life form the wouod be more of these life forms meaning multiple universes as well.

I do understand your point if view. I disagree with it, at this point. But, if you only arguement is I don't understand you will not convince me of anything.

You should talk to those who have made that statement before on other topics. If you want me or anyone else to take you seriously, you need to stop with the personal attacks and answer some of the questions. That is where understanding begins. As long as you do personal attacks, it disproves your point. Because, your point is weak and you know it.

[cormac mac airt]

I stand by my statement and question. I will give an out. It is ok to say I don't know if the universe is a life form or not, I don't. But if it is a life form the wouod be more of these life forms meaning multiple universes as well.

I do understand your point if view. I disagree with it, at this point. But, if you only arguement is I don't understand you will not convince me of anything.

You should talk to those who have made that statement before on other topics. If you want me or anyone else to take you seriously, you need to stop with the personal attacks and answer some of the questions. That is where understanding begins. As long as you do personal attacks, it disproves your point. Because, your point is weak and you know it.

You might try showing that you actually understand the difference between a dimensional membrane and a biological membrane. Because so far you've shown a great ability to confuse the two. They are not the same thing.

cormac

[danielost]

Since you don't have anything intelligent to say try saying nothing. I am through with you and your personal attacks.

[Ben Masada]

If you choose to quote me, that's fine-- but please don't misquote me. I did not say that the Sabbath "is only" a spiritual principle. I said it is a spiritual principle.

Yes-- like the Sabbath is a spiritual principle, (not a particular day) and like the earthly temple was merely a copy of a greater spiritual concept.

You seem to understand what I'm saying regarding the earthly temple being a copy, do you not understand how the Sabbath is also a copy of something? Jesus made clear what the Sabbath is and what it is not and the meaning goes far beyond a particular day of the week. Don't be a slave to your own limited understanding.

Yes, the Sabbath is more than a copy of something. It is a commandment in the Decalogue. For the Jews it is, at least.

[Ben Masada]

Ben. Christ said the sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath. He had a problem with the jews idea of how the jews observed the sabbath.

Yes, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. It means that it is up to us to do whatever we please on the Sabbath. We have chosen to observe it while Paul chose to discard it as shadows of things to come. (Col.2:16,17) That's why I never charge Christians as wrong for having chosen another day to replace the Sabbath with. They are also right according to the gospel of Paul.

[White Crane Feather]

chuckle.... okay, sometimes I get dramatic -but you get the point.

Even our best science, when sufficiently regressing to "the beginning" we are left with "nothing" that somehow becomes "everything" we now have. If it is a puff of hydrogen that started spinning, then where did the hydrogen come from and what started it spinning? And so on....

Ultimately the scientists get back to "nothing" at the beginning, which is exactly where the Creation narrative already begins. The Creation account begins with "formless and void"--- "empty"

Scientists, being ever so clever get more technical and they call "the void" ----- "Space."

Imagine! That clarifies it! A more scientific explanation for an empty space is......... Space. --- and it only took about 3000 years to clear that up.

Lastly-- you wouldn't have had to throw a "probably" in there if anything were proven at all.

Probably is good enough. If the mechanism for something is certain to exist I can say it probably occurred because of the mechanism. The "probably" is just a check. The glass on the road probably came from a car accident. A glass guy could have been walking across the road and dropped the window he was carrying, but it was probably a car accident. I deal with this argument all the time, usually I'm on the other side of it. Some glass in the road is caused by a glass guy dropping glass, but its a very rare occurrence compared to car accidents.

I think you probably have not investigated enough what science says about the Bb. There are a lot of misnomers and straw men out there.

Science does not say the Bb came from nothing. Nor is space nothing. Space itself is seething with energy and expanding. Nor is there any evidence that any of it started. Only that it was more dense, but this is irrelevant because if space is more dense then relatively speaking matter is not. It's complicated.

The matter that we see is most likely the result of a rare quantum fluctuation that we absolutely know can happen. Much smaller ones happen every day and are even responsible for allowing the sun to shine. The universe did not come from nothing. By sheer virtue of the definition of "nothing", nothing is an impossible state.

That dosnt mean that the universe can't come from space. Space as mentioned is not nothing and is seething with emense energy. It's not a mystery how this universe probably came into existence. The mystery lies in the substrate mechanics of how and why anything exists at all. The substraight rules are the true enigma.

This video dosnt get into quantum fluctuations but it will show you a lot of the misconceptions. I'm not sure if I already posted this here or not. I tend to forget details like that. My apologies if its already posted on this thread.

Edited November 16, 2013 by White Crane Feather

[Frank Merton]

I'm going to make one more stab at this, hoping that someone will have comprehension. I think there had to be a beginning of time because infinity means endless and with an endless universe there could be no now.

There could be no "before" the beginning of time. It just began and whatever ensued ensued. When one says nothing existed before the beginning of time, it means there was no such thing as existence, not that "nothing" is a something that could exist. ("My you must be have good eyes to be able to see nothing, and at such a distance!") We cannot talk about the beginning of time from outside it -- there was no eternity before time -- there was no time. Time can be talked about only after it began.

Why did time begin? Why not?

[danielost]

According to mormon teaching, god created time for us so everything wouldn't happen at once.

But, time and distance is relitive. Time is based on your motabalism and distance is based on your size. For example of time, a building is blown up, to us it happened now, to a dove it was so slow that the dove was able to escape it after it went off. To a turtle it happened so fast, the turtle didn't even noe it.

An example of distance a mile to us would be around 200 mikes(a guess)

[White Crane Feather]

I'm going to make one more stab at this, hoping that someone will have comprehension. I think there had to be a beginning of time because infinity means endless and with an endless universe there could be no now.

There could be no "before" the beginning of time. It just began and whatever ensued ensued. When one says nothing existed before the beginning of time, it means there was no such thing as existence, not that "nothing" is a something that could exist. ("My you must be have good eyes to be able to see nothing, and at such a distance!") We cannot talk about the beginning of time from outside it -- there was no eternity before time -- there was no time. Time can be talked about only after it began.

Why did time begin? Why not?

There is nothing in science that says that vacuum and vacuum fluctuations have a beginning. Viewing time as a ticking clock that would have to traverse an infinite amount of ticks to get to now is a mistake. Time is nothing more than changing states of the relative universe. Basically it's movement. The fluctuating zero point field has plenty of energy for many universes and times. The march of particle interaction and quantum fluctuations does need to have a beginning or end. There is no ruler to traverse there is no future or past to come from or go to. There is nothing but now. Those constructs are simply recognitions of various states of the universe. Time, eternity, infinity really has no meaning when viewed as some sort of thing rather than a recognition.

[Ben Masada]

According to mormon teaching, god created time for us so everything wouldn't happen at once.

But, time and distance is relitive. Time is based on your motabalism and distance is based on your size. For example of time, a building is blown up, to us it happened now, to a dove it was so slow that the dove was able to escape it after it went off. To a turtle it happened so fast, the turtle didn't even noe it.

An example of distance a mile to us would be around 200 mikes(a guess)

Although your simile above seems to be interesting, it does sound like a parable as time, whether with relation to God or as we are concerned, was not created but happens as a result of matter in motion. With regards to distance aka space it is also an accident of matter as it cannot be figured without the conception of matter in mind since it must be measured from a body to another.