Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Present your evidence that the Bible record of Adam and Eve is a "fairytale".

After you have done that, explain Hebrews 11:3. How did the author know that bit of scientific fact?

I'm not going to let you tiptoe around this. You can either present your evidence, or show that you are full of hot air.

---

I'm not going to read some bible quote. No thanks. The bible proves nothing. Even if I had a bible in the house I'd toss it in the garbage.

Let me put it another way. I don't think it is fair to ask me to explain quotes from a book I don't accept as true. It would be like a Mormon asking you to explain something in the Book of Mormon. You're not going to run out and find a Book of Mormon and then try to analyze some passage you don't accept as true to begin with. You can explain yourself without asking me to read something from the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I'm not going to read some bible quote. No thanks. The bible proves nothing. Even if I had a bible in the house I'd toss it in the garbage.

Let me put it another way. I don't think it is fair to ask me to explain quotes from a book I don't accept as true. It would be like a Mormon asking you to explain something in the Book of Mormon. You're not going to run out and find a Book of Mormon and then try to analyze some passage you don't accept as true to begin with. You can explain yourself without asking me to read something from the bible.

---

You're heavy on this Book of Mormon thing eh? Did the Mormons tell you some facts you didn't like? If you don't want to hear what you do not like, why are you debating the issues? You know we won't change our opinion, because we can't, to do so would be to deny God's word. You kick against the goad, instead of taking yourself out of range.. The Bible isn't garbage because it expresses views you don't like, God judged Sodom and Gamorrah, that should tell you something. It should tell you he is radically opposed to homosexual practices and corrupt lifestyles. There are not many cities he destroyed outright. What the Bible tells you is this happened and no amount of continuing as they were saved them, they were not even given the opportunity to repent even though Abraham pleaded for the city. It doesn't say that people with homosexual tendencies cannot be used by God. Jehu used eunics to destroy Jezabel, but that the lifestyle isn't on, no matter what the people think. So you know this is what we believe. That is the way it is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

you're heavy on this Book of Mormon thing eh? did the Mormons tell you some facts you didn't like? If you don't want to hear what you do not like, why are you debating the issues? you know we won't change our opinion, because we can't, to do so would be to deny God's word. you kick against the goad, instead of taking yourself out of range.. The Bible isn't garbage because it expresses views you don't like, God judged Sodom and Gamorrah, that should tell you something. It should tell you he is radically opposed to homosexual practices and corrupt lifestyles. There are not many cities he destroyed outright. What the Bible tells you is this happened and no amount of continuing as they were saved them, they were not even given the opportunity to repent even though Abraham pleaded for the city. It doesn't say that people with homosexual tendencies cannot be used by God. Jehu used eunics to destroy Jezabel, but that the lifestyle isn't on, no matter what the people think. So you know this is what we believe. That is the way it is

---

First, there was no Sodom and Gomorrah. That's a fable. There's no proof that these mythical places ever existed let alone that your god destroyed them, or that he even exists. So get over it. You are living in la-la-land.

Next, the Book of Mormon is a nice example of a made-up religious text. It's a lot like the bible, but since it's of more recent origin it's seems to many to be easier to disprove. Nonetheless, both the bible and the Book of Mormon are just man-made fairy tales. There might be bits and pieces of historical truth in either but they are just made up for the most part and phony.

Just as I thought.

Caddie has no proof, not even a respectable argument, so he spouts vitriolic nonsense and evades any issues.

Way to go!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Just as I thought.

Caddie has no proof, not even a respectable argument, so he spouts vitriolic nonsense and evades any issues.

Way to go!

---

Well, if you are going to tell me that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, not to mention that your god destroyed them, who has the burden of proof? I don't have any reason to believe any of this is true. You cannot just pull your King James bible out and call that proof. And if you do (and when you do) who's really evading the argument?

Do you feel the need to disprove the Book of Mormon? I don't and I doubt very much you do. The bible is no different in this respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Actually, there are a couple of arguments against that idea, both scientific and Biblical. First, God made light, so why would you think that he would wait for the light to reach us to show us His creation? Second, have you ever looked into the assumptions that are made to determine the distance that the stars are from us? There are only two ways to know the distance for sure, and those are (1) to travel and measure the distance, which is impossible, or (2) triangulate on the object with another object far enough from earth to be significant - which is also impossible.

So what is done is described in this document:

Estimating Distances across our Galaxy

I won't try to go into this in detail, but just to point out a couple of assumptions made with this approach which may or may not be true:

1) They establish the temperature of the star by the colour. The problem with this is that the colour varies according to the speed of the star relative to us. Unless we know the speed, we cannot be certain of the colour. This change in colour is commonly known as the "red shift". Often this red-shift is also used to determine the speed and direction of travel of the star relative to us, using additional assumptions, again, with respect to the colour of the star.

2) They say that the size of the star is related to the temperature, so they can determine the size and thus the distance by the brightness. Well, the assumption in the first comment above is one issue which can cause errors in that estimate, but also dust and other small objects in space can alter the apparent brightness, or possibly even the colour, thus causing further inaccuracies in the estimated distance.

This just gives you a bit of the flavour, but clearly even these two assumptions can cause significant differences in distance. Nonetheless, even with greater distances, that does not prove that the universe is older unless you can prove that God chose not to create light when he created heavens.

Keep in mind that in verse 3, God created light. It was not until verses 14-17 that the stars were created and then God set them in the firmament. The nearest star is 4 light years away, yet this light appeared in a day, not 4 years, so it was instantaneous. We have no reason to believe that God put the stars out there and then said let's let them wait billions of years to see the glory of the heavens. that is contrary to what God said in His word.

Now you can never again say that you have never heard anyone argue against that idea. ;)

---

Regarding your scientific argument against the idea presented by galveston.

Firstly, your assertion that triangulation is impossible is plainly false. Stellar parallax were first calculated by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 and with the planned GAIA and SIM missions, distances of up to 100 000 light years will be accurately determined.

Parallax
Limits to Parallax

Secondly, the redshift of a star is easily determined by observing the absorption lines in the optical spectrum of the star. This is then used to correct the colour of the star and therefore establish its temperature.

Redshift

Thirdly, your assertion about dust implies that scientists cannot determine that there is any dust between us and the star we are looking at. This is plainly false as dust clouds can easily be detected. They are called Nebulae.

Nebula

Fourthly, galveston made a poor choice using 10 000 light years as his example. This is too close to 6000 which leads to the impression that maybe inaccuracies in calculations can account for this. In reality the size of the universe is estimated by scientists to be over 14 billion (14 000 million) light years. This is over 200 000 000 % more that 6000. Surely you are not suggesting that scientists could be this far out in their calculations?

Finally all of the above is academic given that there is one undeniable and irrefutable proof that the universe is far bigger than 6000 light years suggested by YEC. SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy which was observed on February 23, 1987. There was nothing unusual about the supernova until about 8 months later when the expanding shockwave of light hit rings of gas surrounding it causing the rings to glow.

Given that scientists know exactly how long it took for the light to reach the gas rings and can measure the rings' angular size accurately, simple triangulation is possible which places SN1987A 168,000 light-years away!

SN1987A

This leaves only the Biblical argument that God made the light from a distant star appear instantaneously, but even this argument is seriously flawed!

Once again, let us consider SN1987A. According to YEC the star that became SN1987A was created 6000 years ago. Tj3 suggests that God made the light from this star instantly appear to be visible on Earth. To do this God must have created a light wave 168,000 light-years long stretching from Earth all the way back to the star in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Now let us ‘freeze’ this light wave at the moment of its creation so as to enable us to look more closely at it. Starting from the Earth’s end imagine travelling two light days along this wave away from the Earth. At this point in space we see the light that Adam would see when he was created two days later.

Continuing along the wave we travel a further 1700 light years. At this point in space we see the light that Noah would see sometime after the Flood. Travelling a further 2300 light years we reach the point in space where the light that Mary would see the night Jesus was born, is found.

Another 1987 light years along this path we reach a point in space where the light no longer is that of a star but of a supernova. This is the light that astronomers saw on February 23, 1987. A further 8 light months along this path we reach the point where the light now shows three rings around the supernova suddenly brighten. A further 22 light years along brings us to the place where the light we see today is.

So far we have travelled only along 6000 light years out of the 168,000 light years to where the star is so let us continue right to the end of this light wave and travel 168,000 light years from Earth. What do we find at this point in space? Nothing! The star is not here. The supernova is not here! At this place is the light that will reach the Earth in 162,000 AD, and by that time the rings will have expanded greatly away from this point.

What does this all mean? It means that the star never existed in the first place as too the supernova. All of what we are seeing never happened! God did not create the star, but merely the phantom of a star.

Psalm 19.1: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

What glory is there for God who doesn’t create the real thing but only an imaginary one?

Either God is a trickster who deceives his creation or He did not instantaneously create the light from distant stars to be visible on Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

Well, if you are going to tell me that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, not to mention that your god destroyed them, who has the burden of proof? I don't have any reason to believe any of this is true. You cannot just pull your King James bible out and call that proof. And if you do (and when you do) who's really evading the argument?

Do you feel the need to disprove the Book of Mormon? I don't and I doubt very much you do. The bible is no different in this respect.

---

Why do you think ancient profane history is any better supported than Biblical history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

Regarding your scientifc argument against the idea presented by galveston.

Firstly, your assertion that triangulation is impossible is plainly false. Stellar parallax were first calculated by Friedrich Bessel in 1838 and with the planned GAIA and SIM missions, distances of up to 100 000 lightyears will be accurately determined.

Parallax
Limits to Parallax

Secondly, the redshift of a star is easily determined by observing the absorption lines in the optical spectrum of the star. This is then used to correct the colour of the star and therefore establish its temperature.

Redshift

Thirdly, your assertion about dust implies that scientists cannot determine that there is any dust between us and the star we are looking at. This is plainly false as dust clouds can easily be detected. They are called Nebulae.

Nebula

Fourthly, galveston made a poor choice using 10 000 light years as his example. This is too close to 6000 which leads to the impression that maybe inaccuracies in calculations can account for this. In reality the size of the universe is estimated by scientists to be over 14 billion (14 000 million) light years. This is over 200 000 000 % more that 6000. Surely you are not suggesting that scientists could be this far out in their calculations?!

Finally all of the above is academic given that there is one undeniable and irrefutable proof that the universe is far bigger than 6000 light years suggested by YEC. SN 1987A was a supernova in the outskirts of the Tarantula Nebula in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a nearby dwarf galaxy which was observed on February 23, 1987. There was nothing unusual about the supernova until about 8 months later when the expanding shockwave of light hit rings of gas surrounding it causing the rings to glow.

Given that scientists know exactly how long it took for the light to reach the gas rings and can measure the rings' angular size accurately, simple triangulation is possible which places SN1987A 168,000 light-years away!

SN1987A

This leaves only the Biblical argument that God made the light from a distant star appear instantaneously, but even this argument is seriously flawed!

Once again, let us consider SN1987A. According to YEC the star that became SN1987A was created 6000 years ago. Tj3 suggests that God made the light from this star instantly appear to be visible on Earth. To do this God must have created a light wave 168,000 light-years long stretching from Earth all the way back to the star in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

Now let us ‘freeze’ this light wave at the moment of its creation so as to enable us to look more closely at it. Starting from the Earth’s end imagine travelling two light days along this wave away from the Earth. At this point in space we see the light that Adam would see when he was created two days later.

Continuing along the wave we travel a further 1700 light years. At this point in space we see the light that Noah would see sometime after the Flood. Travelling a further 2300 light years we reach the point in space where the light that Mary would see the night Jesus was born, is found.

Another 1987 light years along this path we reach a point in space where the light no longer is that of a star but of a supernova. This is the light that astronomers saw on February 23, 1987. A further 8 light months along this path we reach the point where the light now shows three rings around the supernova suddenly brighten. A further 22 light years along brings us to the place where the light we see today is.

So far we have travelled only along 6000 light years out of the 168,000 light years to where the star is so let us continue right to the end of this light wave and travel 168,000 light years from Earth. What do we find at this point in space? Nothing! The star is not here. The supernova is not here! At this place is the light that will reach the Earth in 162,000 AD, and by that time the rings will have expanded greatly away from this point.

What does this all mean? It means that the star never existed in the first place as too the supernova. All of what we are seeing never happened!! God did not create the star, but merely the phantom of a star.

Psalm 19.1: The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

What glory is there for God who doesn’t create the real thing but only an imaginary one?

Either God is a trickster who deceives his creation or He did not instantaneously create the light from distant stars to be visible on Earth.

---

Thank you for the post. Interesting reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Why do you think ancient profane history is any better supported than Biblical history?

---

I find no reason to believe biblical history to be true and that was the premise you were operating under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadillac59

I find no reason to believe biblical history to be true and that was the premise you were operating under.

---

The Way of the Master

Hi Gal,

In response to your OP, my favorite source is the works of Dr. Gerald Schroeder, author of "Genesis & The Big Bang". I will link you to his article regarding the Age of the Universe.

Please note, however, that his perspective is Orthodox Jewish as well as being that of a physicist and earth scientist with PhDs from MIT. He also has a chemical engineering degree from MIT. So the article references both Jewish sources and scientific sources.

Gerald Schroeder - Age of the Universe

His basic thesis is that when science determines the age of the universe to be roughly 15 million years, and the Bible determines the age of the universe to be 5770 years (in the Jewish Calender), BOTH of these are true. And he has a convincing argument for the fact that both can be true... depending on your perspective at the time of creation.

It's a great article. Let me know what you think of it.

Caddilac, you might also enjoy the article, whether you agree with it or not. I recommend it highly.

Have fun.

Elliot

You're right, Elliot, great article. I'll admit that I don't have the background to fully understand it.

My OP is based on the fact that I do believe that the Bible is accurate in all points.

For Caddie's info, when the Dead Sea dries up, we will find the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sndbay

The Way of the Master

---

What is that website, some kind of joke? Intelligent design? That's a laugh.

Another thought:

Eve was created out of the "rib" of Adam. The Hebrew word could just as easily have been translated "cell", which makes sense to us now although not at the time it was translated.

On this basis, we will learn that it is possible to obtain female dna from male dna.

As a Christian and a scientist, I have found myself in the middle of many debates about The Bible versus science. In my experience I have found that people fall into four different groups. The first two groups are on opposite ends of the spectrum and are generally impossible to hold any reasonable discussion with as they are so convinced that they are right that they are unwilling even to listen to another point of view. While the last two groups hold positions in the middle.

The first group are the Creationists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and thus in a 6000 year old Earth and absolutely reject any scientific theory or evidence which suggests otherwise.

The second group are the "Evolutionists" as called by the Creationists. They believe in the Big Bang, evolution and accept only that which can be scientifically tested. They reject the Bible as a mere story which contains nothing of value.

The third group, which takes in middle position are the "Theistic Evolutionists", those that believe that God is the creator but that he created the universe according to the theories of science, i.e. the Big Bang and Evolution. They see the Bible as containing moral and religious truths but no scientific truth.

The fourth group, which I once thought that I was the only member, I called the "Creation Evolutionists". We believe that both the Biblical account of Creation in the Bible and the scientific account i.e. the Big Bang and evolution are both correct. We have no trouble accepting that the universe is both 6000 years old and 15 billion years old. Einstein's theories of relativity enables this apparent contradiction to be true!

When I read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" I knew that I was correct about The Bible and science both describing the same reality, just from a different perspective.

As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from Jewish Biblical scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century. The following is a list of some of the “facts” about the universe that they determined solely based and what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these “facts”.

The universe has a beginning (1940’s)
The universe was created out of nothing (1940’s)
Space is expanding (1940’s)
The universe is 11 dimensional (1990’s)
Into the Eleventh Dimension


If the above are not convincing enough that the Bible is not merely a fairy tale written by ignorant people consider the following.

Genesis 1:3-4
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Light was the first thing to be created but it was tangled with the darkness, God then separated the light from the darkness.

This is exactly what scientists describe the initial moments of the Big Bang to be! In the instant after the Big Bang there existed only two things in the universe photons of light and electrons/positrons, but because the universe was so dense with these the photons and electrons were constantly interacting and so the universe was dark. A short moment later when the universe had expanded some more photons and electron decoupled (separated) and from that moment onwards light could be seen in the universe!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elscarta

As a Christian and a scientist, I have found myself in the middle of many debates about The Bible versus science. In my experience I have found that people fall into four different groups. The first two groups are on opposite ends of the spectrum and are generally impossible to hold any reasonable discussion with as they are so convinced that they are right that they are unwilling even to listen to another point of view. While the last two groups hold positions in the middle.

The first group are the Creationists. They believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible, and thus in a 6000 year old Earth and absolutely reject any scientific theory or evidence which suggests otherwise.

The second group are the "Evolutionists" as called by the Creationists. They believe in the Big Bang, evolution and accept only that which can be scientifically tested. They reject the Bible as a mere story which contains nothing of value.

The third group, which takes in middle position are the "Theistic Evolutionists", those that believe that God is the creator but that he created the universe according to the theories of science, ie the Big Bang and Evolution. They see the Bible as containing moral and religious truths but no scientific truth.

The fourth group, which I once thought that I was the only member, I called the "Creation Evolutionists". We believe that both the Biblical account of Creation in the Bible and the scientific account ie the Big Bang and evolution are both correct. We have no trouble accepting that the universe is both 6000 years old and 15 billion years old. Einstein's theories of relativity enables this apparent contradiction to be true!

When I read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book "Genesis and the Big Bang" I knew that I was correct about The Bible and science both describing the same reality, just from a different perspective.

As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from Jewish Biblical scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century. The following is a list of some of the “facts” about the universe that they determined solely based and what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these “facts”.

The universe has a beginning (1940’s)
The universe was created out of nothing (1940’s)
Space is expanding (1940’s)
The universe is 11 dimensional (1990’s)
Into the Eleventh Dimension


If the above are not convincing enough that the Bible is not merely a fairy tale written by ignorant people consider the following.

Genesis 1:3-4
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.

Light was the first thing to be created but it was tangled with the darkness, God then separated the light from the darkness.

This is exactly what scientists describe the initial moments of the Big Bang to be!! In the instant after the Big Bang there existed only two things in the universe photons of light and electrons/positrons, but because the universe was so dense with these the photons and electrons were constantly interacting and so the universe was dark. A short moment later when the universe had expanded some more photons and electron decoupled (separated) and from that moment onwards light could be seen in the universe!

---

Elscarta, I have never heard the term "Creation Evolutionist" before, but it is a good description of the position that I favor... that both the biblical account and the scientific account of creation are true.

Furthermore, it would seem that Maimonides (1135 -1204) held the same basic opinion. Maimonides was a Jewish Rabbi, scholar and biblical/talmudic comentator of Spanish origin, though he moved to Morocco in the 1140s. He was also a scientist and physician. He was a member of the royal court in Egypt, and was the personal physician of Sultan Saladin and then the Sultan's family.

In one of his writings called "Moreh Nevuchim" ("Guide to the Perplexed"), Maimonides explained that science and the Bible are in complete agreement with regard to the nature of "the genesis of the universe", and that where science seems to disagree with the Biblical account, it is because we either do not correctly understand the science or because we do not properly understand the Bible. Maimonides was very much a rationalist who believed that BOTH accounts, the scientific and the biblical, are true and in complete agreement with each other.

I guess that makes Maimonides one of the earliest examples of a "Creation Evolutionist" as you call it.

I happen to fit the bill myself, and I know many others who seem to agree with that position. Dr. Schroeder is probably the most highly scientifically trained Orthodox Jew with that opinion, but he is far from the sole holder of that opinion among the Jewish people. There have been quite a few Jewish scholars and Jewish scientists throughout history that have held that position. Nahmanides, who lived shortly after Maimonides and was also a physician, actually seems to describe the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe in his commentaries on the Bible. Gershonides, an astronomer, also seemed to be reconciling the biblical account with the scientific understanding of his time. The list is long.

You are not alone...

Elliot

Finally some believable information from persons of great intellect and reason.

I Have a few concerns with elscarta's account of:-
(a) The universe has a beginning (1940's)
(b) The universe was created out of nothing(1940's
(c) Space is expanding (1940's)
(d) The universe is 11 dimensional (1990's)

Is that (d) preclude (a) and (b)

The problem with saying that the universe started with The Big Bang is that (d) String Theory does away with the need for The Big Bang.

Elscarta's account (a through to d ) is a history of science account. A religious account should not be paradigmatic.

The other problem is that it is possible that all accounts(a through to d ) may turn out to be incorrect.

I would be interested in elscarta's thoughts on the matter, or anyone else for that matter... Thanks Tut

elscarta quote
As stated in a previous posting Dr. Gerald Schroeder quotes from the Biblical Scholars who wrote their commentaries on the Old Testament between the 11th and 13th century.
The following is a list of "facts" about the universe that they determined solely based on what was in the Bible. The date in brackets represents when modern science determined these facts.

(a) The universe has a beginning (1940's)
(b) The universe was created out of nothing(1940's)
(c) Space is expanding (1940's)
(d) The universe is 11 dimensional (1990's)
My use of letters a,b,c,d.

As there has been no reply to my previous post I will attempt to expand on the matter.
The problem is that (a) and (b) don't sit comfortably together. If (d) is correct (which it may or may not be) then there are problems. The reason being is that in String Theory there is no beginning of the universe and no first cause. String Theory suggests that time and space have always existed in one dimension or another. There was a Big Bang but this is more a collision of dimensions. If (d) turns out to be true then we have to discard (a) and (b).

If (a) and (b) turn out to be true then we have to discard (d). But this won't solve the problem. As far as science is concerned there have always been competing theories. The classical example is Einstein's Relativity versus Quantum Mechanics. This is not a problem because one theory will be favored over the other. The other possibility is that the two theories will merge and form a new theory.
While this is not a problem for science it a problem for religion.
If we want to say the two theories parallel each other then we have to say that religion like science has gone through a paradigm shift (a to d)
Clearly this will not do because if we say that the Biblical account is also a paradigm shift then the Bible is reduced to nothing more than an outdated text ( which it is not).

Any suggestions.. Tut

Regarding Tut's concerns. Firstly let me clarify a few things. Since God is Truth then His Word, The Bible is also Truth and the Universe (Creation) His Work, is also Truth too. So I do not see any conflict between God's Word and His Work.

On the other hand, science is man's attempt to understand God's Work, and, as it is based on imperfect humans, is capable of being flawed. Theology is man's attempt to understand God's Word, and, as it is also based on imperfect humans, is capable of being flawed!

Tut's concern about paradigm shifts are unfounded as they do not apply to The Bible, rather our interpretation of the Bible, just as paradigm shifts in science do not apply to the Universe, rather our understanding of the Universe. Points (a) to (d) in my previous post were 11th - 13th century Jewish scholars interpretation of the Bible, not direct quotes out of the Bible!

My understanding of M-Theory (which is the 11-D thoery which encompasses all 5 competing Superstring theories) is that our current Universe started when two branes collided. Also that no information regarding what was in the "previous" universe can pass through the colliding branes into our Universe, even to the point that the "previous" universe could have had different values for physical constants such as the speed of light etc.

My question is therefore how do we know if there were any previous collisions? Our Universe may have been the first!

I have to admit that I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics, string theory and quantum connectedness theory. I have read some stuff on these subjects, but they have always made my head spin. I think that the guys who work on quantum mechanics must either be insane themselves or they must be trying to drive everyone ELSE insane. I just simply cannot understand the concepts without resorting to psychtropic drugs that I have no interest in experimenting with.

Can someone explain... in terms that a 3 year old could understand... how string theory works, how it applies to creation/genesis theory, and how it would preclude the Big Bang theory of creation/genesis?

Thanks.

Elliot

Hi Elliot

First of all I think it is important to understand why String String Theory was introduced in the first place.
The classical way of thinking has been that just before the Big Bang the universe was condensed into a tiny singularity that was infinite in time and mass. A Physicist once said ( I cannot remember his name) that infinities only serve to show our ignorance. Once matter is separated by less than a Planck Length (very tiny distance) then the classical sciences we use are of no use. A new way was needed to explain distances smaller than a Planck Length. Basically with String Theory there is no need for a singularity which marks the beginning of time and space... I'll let someone else come in here if you like and continue a bit later. My internet still keeps dropping out (dam government monopolies ).Tut

In the midst of all this interesting discussion, it might be good to remember that there is not only a physical universe, but also a spiritual universe that we cannot (normally) see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

In the midst of all this interesting discussion, it might be good to remember that there is not only a physical universe, but also a spiritual universe that we cannot (normally) see.

---

How do you know there is a spiritual universe?

I'll let other people more knowledgeable than myself answer spiritual matters.

The interesting thing about String Theory is that it allows us to redefine a singularity. A reason for this is because Strings are extremely tiny. Importantly,they are not a point particle (singularity) as defined by classical physics. They are two dimensional "objects" of pure energy which vibrate. If a String were the size of a small tree then an atom would be the size of our galaxy( very roughly).

Basically everything is made up of strings. The difference between me and the chair I am sitting on is the way the strings are vibrating. To cut a long story short. The mathematical outcome of String Theory is the need for extra dimensions. One such possibility is the existence of Branes. When Branes collide bad things happen to our universe and the other universe which collided with us. The result is what scientists called the Big Bang.

The problem from a religious point of view is that there is no first cause. Elscarta makes the point that how do we know if there were any previous collisions. Our universe may have been the first. Unfortunately I think there are problems with this claim. Brane Theory suggests that there was no first, in exactly the same way as there will be no last collision.

We need to keep in mind this is all only theory based on mathematics... Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I'll let other people more knowledgeable than myself answer spiritual matters.

The interesting thing about String Theory is that it allows us to redefine a singularity. A reason for this is because Strings are extremely tiny. Importantly,they are not a point particle (singularity) as defined by classical physics. They are two dimensional "objects" of pure energy which vibrate. If a String were the size of a small tree then an atom would be the size of our galaxy( very roughly).

Basically everything is made up of strings. The difference between me and the chair I am sitting on is the way the strings are vibrating. To cut a long story short. The mathematical outcome of String Theory is the need for extra dimensions. One such possibility is the existence of Branes. When Branes collide bad things happen to our universe and the other universe which collided with us. The result is what scientists called the Big Bang.

The problem from a religious point of view is that there is no first cause. Elscarta makes the point that how do we know if there were any previous collisions. Our universe may have been the first. Unfortunately I think there are problems with this claim. Brane Theory suggests that there was no first, in exactly the same way as there will be no last collision.

We need to keep in mind this is all only theory based on mathematics....Tut

---

All these theories are very interesting but they are only theories and just like the giant turtle and the big bang they will be discredited and forgotten. You really need to get it straight are you talking about dimensions or parallel universes? There is a difference

As an after thought I think that String Theory is the 'fly in the ointment' here. We already have a scientific and a biblical account of creation that match each other. There is no need to introduce String Theory at this stage.

Hello Paraclete, Thanks for point out the difference between dimensions and parallel universes. Someone more qualified than myself could do a better job, but here goes anyway.

Our universe has branes traveling through it via a different dimension. These branes can be as big as the universe itself. If two branes happen to collide( now called membranes) then there is a Big Bang. Now exactly the same thing could be happening in a parallel universe. I don't think M Theory excludes the possibility that two parallel universes can interact, however I could stand corrected... Tut

Tut, the mathematics of a supercoducting loop suggest that there was no first time that the current went around the loop in exactly the same way as there will be no last time. This is the same with any oscillating system. The mathematics doesn't need to predict a first cause for there to be a first cause!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Hi Elliot

First of all I think it is important to understand why String String Theory was introduced in the first place.
The classical way of thinking has been that just before the Big Bang the universe was condensed into a tiny singularity that was infinite in time and mass. A Physicist once said ( I cannot remember his name) that infinities only serve to show our ignorance. Once matter is separated by less than a Planck Length (very tiny distance) then the classical sciences we use are of no use. A new way was needed to explain distances smaller than a Planck Length. Basically with String Theory there is no need for a singularity which marks the beginning of time and space... I'll let someone else come in here if you like and continue a bit later. My internet still keeps dropping out (dam government monopolies ).Tut

---

Thanks. I STILL don't understand it, but I appreciate the effort.

Hello Elliot

Perhaps a few remarks centred on the last part of the debate will help.

Obviously, a genesis account requires a first cause. There are many good first cause arguments that fit well into the traditional Big Bang theory.

String/Brane theory makes it harder to fit in a first cause argument. Harder, but not impossible.

Best of luck with it... Tut