If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?

After talking to my friend a bit in dutch, I explained to her in Hebrew that I just told my friend that the very solid table from which we were eating, that if we would leave the room, close the door, and then nobody would observe the table, that that table then would go out of existence. About this her only comment was: "That is correct."

It is not correct, there is no theory in physics were objects cease to exist upon observation by concious entities.

As I mentioned above quantum mechanics does say that objects become less classical when removed from interactions, but:

1. "Interactions" are not the same thing as "observations by concious entities".
2. "Less classical" is not same as "does not exist".

Even ignoring quantum mechanics and taking what you've said at face value, if the table stopped existing, why would it exist again when you walked back in? That would imply all the physical information of the table was stored somewhere waiting to enacted upon your re-entry. Where is this information stored? Who/What stores it? How is it tied to concious thought? Secondly the effects seem to be identical to if the table still existed the whole time, so it is completed untestable.

Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Eliyahu writes: Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure. It could be one, or the other. Or both of 'm. Or none of 'm. Or both of 'm and something more. Or one of 'm and something more. Or the other one of 'm, and something more. Or none of 'm and something more. Or ... Well, the possibliities are endless. All I can say about it is: "Who am I to judge?"

Let me repeat the question. After someone makes a summary statement, what perverse part of your nature makes you request it all be presented to you again?

Cosmic standard time? You mean like the scientific version of cosmic standard time? The one where the Big Bang happened at time 0 and the Earth formed at time 9.14 billion years? That would be earth time.

That would be everyone's time. We know better than to think that everything we see through our telescopes is all happening at the same time. Simultaneity isn't governed by when the light arrives at your eyes. Even if we were looking at the Big Bang and Earth from somewhere else in the universe we'd still just take distance, relative speed and acceleration into account, just as we already do from here. We'd still get the same answer for the time of Earth's formation after the Big Bang.

These adjustments to relative speed and distance and expansion of the universe are how we know, for example, when distant supernova actually happened. We know the supernova observed by Kepler in 1604 actually occurred about 20,000 years before because it is about 20,000 light years away. For very distant objects we have to take red-shift, distance and expansion of the universe into account to know how far back in time we're peering. That light from both the 1604 supernova and from galaxies 12 billion light years away arrive at our telescopes at the same time does not fool us into thinking we're watching simultaneous events.

Light falling into the gravity well of a black hole will experience the same slowing as everything else. An observer will not see "an enormously high frequency." The enormous gravity will slow down time, not everything else.

Your unfamiliarity with relativity is again very evident. A gravity well will slow time *and* motion, including the motion of light. It's obvious when you think about it. Let's say you're observing a clock in a strong gravity well. You can tell that time is flowing more slowly because the hands of the clock are moving more slowly. Motion is how we measure time, so of course the slowing of time must also mean the slowing of motion. Including light's motion.

This is why an observer at the bottom of a strong gravity well will not observe the outside universe to be in frenetic motion, because the arrival of light from the outside is also slowed.

So, keeping in mind that light falling into a gravity well is slowed along with everything else, tell us again how your observations from the bottom of a gravity well correspond with Genesis.

--Percy

You can make it even more obvious. The food is hot on the table and a candle is burning when there's a sudden emergency, everyone leaves and doesn't return for an hour during which the table and the food and the candle are completely unobserved. When everyone returns the food is cold and the candle has burned down a couple inches.

So if the table and food and the candle go out of existence while unobserved, what causes them to return to existence in such a way as to perfectly match the passage of an hour of time? In other words, it isn't enough just to store the state of the table somewhere while it is non-existent. You must also store the effects of the passage of time.

The example actually needs a little improvement because the unobserved room is still connected to the rest of the universe. Some of the heat from the food and the candle will escape the room where they can be observed, and of course there are innumerable other connections with everything else. Isolation from all observation is required for this to be the example Eliyahu intended it to be, but even if that were the case there's still all the things you mentioned.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add a little more detail at the end.

Eliyahu writes: I'll explain this a bit. A while ago I was having the shabbat dinner in the house of a dutch friend here in the Judean desert. He is married to a russian woman who happens to have a university degree in physics, she is an engineer in physics. After talking to my friend a bit in dutch, I explained to her in Hebrew that I just told my friend that the very solid table from which we were eating, that if we would leave the room, close the door, and then nobody would observe the table, that that table then would go out of existence. About this her only comment was: "That is correct."

That's what she said, but what she was thinking was, "If I tell him he's right, maybe he'll shut up."

--Percy

Eliyahu writes: Like I said, science discovered this almost a 100 years ago. How come you don't have a clue? Could it be that we are being lied to by the scientists...

Science discovered the universe doesn't exist a hundred years ago, and now they're lying to us about it, but you have somehow uncovered their dark secret?

Are you testing the limits of how ridiculous you can be?

--Percy

And you don't even know the the universe doesn't exist?? I mean; it is not like that is a recent discovery or something, science discovered it almost a hundred years ago, and you don't know about it?

If only Galileo had met you.

Eliyahu made clear that he doesn't believe "in the beginning" means a single point in time. I'll go along with whatever interpretation he likes, but it does seem hard to avoid the interpretation that creation of heaven and earth was the opening act of the first day.

--Percy

That's what she said, but what she was thinking was, "If I tell him he's right, maybe he'll shut up."

ROFL!

Sometimes, when the straight man is as good as Eliyahu, the comic followup is almost superfluous. When I read Eliyahu's post, I could almost see the woman's eyes roll up in her head. But then Eli went to the bathroom and the woman and her husband vanished into non-reality. And then I

ABE:

Seriously, if Eliyahu's point relies on the existence not existing, I don't see the value in probing his thinking too deeply.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

you want to imply because other people had myths about floods that yours must be true

Bs'd

What I say is, that the fact that every old culture has a flood myth, that that is the proof A worldwide flood really happened.

In fact, if it was global and all humans are descended from the Noahic family line then we should see these identical flood myths in not just a lot of cultures, but in all cultures because they all stem from the same initial breeding population.

And that's exactly what we see.

However, the biggest death nail is that one culture (which we know a great deal about) does not have nearly a similar flood myth.......The Egyptians. Their flood myth does not even end with the deaths of all of the Egyptian people, but rather the God responsible for causing it, Hathor, floods the world with the blood of those she kills. Ra decides the punishment, while not total, has been enough and orders slaves (Living humans after the flood happens) to make a lake of beer for Hathor to drink while she is drinking the blood. She drinks it, gets drunk and gets bored of slaughtering everyone...

And then, the few survivors, start the human race again.

Because these myths have been transmitted orally you cannot expect them to be all exactly the same after more than 4000 years,

But still, every ancient culture has its flood myth. Also the Egyptians.

What I say is, that the fact that every old culture has a flood myth, that that is the proof A worldwide flood really happened.

1. That would not be proof.
2. You cannot establish that every old culture has a flood myth anyway.

What I say is, that the fact that every old culture has a flood myth, that that is the proof A worldwide flood really happened.

It is proof that each of these cultures experienced a flood, which really isn't that shocking. That does not require a simultaneous, world wide flood. On top of that, not every culture has a flood myth, and many of the flood myths contradict each other.

And that's exactly what we see.

Here is a chinese flood myth:

"According to the main mythological tradition, Gun's plan of flood control was through the use of a miraculously continuously self-expanding soil, Xirang.[1] So, Gun choose to obtain the Xirang by stealing it from the Supreme Divinity, which he did; however, the Supreme Divinity became quite angered at this importunity.[1] Year in and year out, many times, and to great extents, Gun applied the magical Xirang earth, attempting to block and barricade the flood waters with dams, dikes, and embankments which he built facilitated by utilizing the special powers of the magic soil, yet Gun was never able to abate the problems of the Great Flood. Whether Gun's failure to abate the flood was due to divine wrath against him or to defects in his approach to hydrological engineering remains an unanswered question—although one pointed out over two thousand years ago by Qu Yuan, in his "Heavenly Questions".[11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_(China)

That is nothing like the Noachian flood myth. It also shows that the flood was localized. Gun did not put his family in a boat with animals, and wait out the flood.

CogitoErgoSum writes: First posting, having read these forums from afar, so bear with me. Not my specialisation really, I teach Biology, but having to teach life cycles of stars I did a little research. If our sun is second, or third generation ; as they have found out by looking at the composition, does this not negate the whole "let there be light" narrative. The fact that our sun actually formed from a supernova of a previous sun means we have already had light. I await being torn apart with trepidation !

Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time.

Genesis 1:2 The spirit of God is in the earth and darkness covers the earth, after it was created. We don't know much about the creation of the earth except that it was created with the universe. I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.

Genesis 1:3 is when light penetrated the atmosphere for the first time here on earth. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time.

---

That's an assumption, rather it seems to be summing up the following verses - which certainly do not describe the creation of the universe as we know it.

quote:

---

Genesis 1:2 The spirit of God is in the earth and darkness covers the earth, after it was created. We don't know much about the creation of the earth except that it was created with the universe. I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.

---

In fact we know that the Earth came into existence about 4.5 billion years ago, a LONG time after the Big Bang (about 13.5 billion years ago). In fact this is closely related to the point of the post that you are supposedly replying to.

I have no idea why you think that "darkness" would mean the atmosphere either. And you don't mention the references to the ocean (which seems to be the Primordial Ocean, common to Middle Eastern mythologies).

quote:

---

Genesis 1:3 is when light penetrated the atmosphere for the first time here on earth. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.

---

Where does it mention light penetrating the atmosphere ? Where is the suggestion that light existed prior to this point ? And why do you decide that the "darkness" in this verse is completely different from that in the preceding verse ?

In fact this verse seems to refer to the establishment of the day-night cycle, as verse 5 clearly states that the separated light is "day" and the darkness "night".

I would presume the darkness was carbon dioxide, methane, etc filling the atmosphere as is shown in Science.

Aren't both of those gasses invisible?

. Later verses that discuss creation of the stars, lights, etc are mere past tense grammatically.

So day four does not come after day two?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Blue writes: Genesis 1:1 is creation of the universe, which includes all matter/energy, space and time. This can be described in gravitation theories like bb, or any theories revolving creation of all material, space and time. Paulk writes: That's an assumption, rather it seems to be summing up the following verses - which certainly do not describe the creation of the universe as we know it.

It is not an assumption that Genesis 1:1 is describing creation of the universe and earth which includes all matter energy, space and time. If the verse is true, then that is where all things root. It makes a prediction that we will not find a origin of the universe that is contradictory. Science is still yet to prove it wrong. Science can't prove God didn't create the universe. I also find it interesting that this is the only creation story in history that mentions creation of space and time, all others explain creation within space and time.