Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[ecco]

Do you literary believe in this fairy tale level of explanation?

I know one person in this thread who literally believes in this fairy tale level of explanations.

Hint:
It's not polymath257
It's not darkstorm
It's not blu2
It's not me



I thought trying to have a rational discussion with a Biblical Literalist Creationist was bad. It don't top this.

 

[gnostic]

I agree that the BB-theory doesn´t explain everything. (To me it explains nothing at all)

I don´t know which BB-model the scientists in the linked article below are counting on:

Scientists have now detected a galaxy COSMOS-AzTEC-1 which surprises the scientists. According to the formation theory and predictions in the Big Bang theory. A 12.4 bill. years old galaxy, close to the 13.8 bill age of the Universe, are giving the scientist some problems

LOL

Do you do that a lot? Read some articles, without understanding them?

In the article you quoted, it stated the distance of COSMOS-AzTEC-1 being “12.4 billion light years away” from our galaxy, not the age of this galaxy being “12.4 billion years old”.

You are confusing the article’s use of distance with mistaken impression that it to be speaking of the galaxy’s age.

Let me give some examples, regarding to distance and age in astronomy.

The mean distance between Sun and Earth is about 8 minutes and 19 seconds, in term of light speed. The distance between the Sun to the galactic centre of the Milky Way is 22,700 light years away.

All of those measurements regarding to light minutes and light years, are the distance between two points. They are not the measurement of ages. The Earth a you know is 4.54 billion years old, while the sun is about 4.6 billion years old.

The closest star to us, is Alpha Centauri, which is 4.37 light years away from our Sun, and this is talking about the distance from us, not Alpha Centauri‘s age.

Now Alpha Centauri is a 3-star system (trinary star system) -

1. Alpha Centauri A (Rigil Kentaurus), main sequence star, yellow dwarf
2. Alpha Centauri B, main sequence star, orange dwarf
3. Alpha Centauri C (Proxima Centauri), red dwarf star

Stars A & B, orbit around each other so they are referred to as a binary star, while star C, orbits around both A & B.

Proxima Centauri (C) is the closest star to us, at 4.22 light years away from our Sun. However, due to the low mass and low luminosity of Proxima Centauri, we can only see C with a telescope, not the naked eye.

All 3 of stars are of different ages:

A is about 4.4 billion years old
B is about 6.5 billion years old
C is about 4.85 billion years old​

All four stars (including our Sun) are Population I stars, meaning it is “3rd generation star”.

Do you what the oldest star discovered, in our Milky Way?

This is J0815+4729. It is about 7200 light years away from our Sun, and approximately 33,000 light years from the Milky Way’s centre; both numbers I have given you, are distance, not the measurement of this star’s age.

The age of J0815+4729 is about 13.5 billion years old. It was formed about 300 years after the Big Bang.

We know it’s age, because it is a Population II star, with metal deficiency stars, meaning these type of stars, have very little elements heavier than helium (look up “Metallicity”, which explained different generations of stars, by stars’ contents, eg their richness or deficiency of elements heavier than helium).

J0815+4729 is a carbon rich star, but with very little iron, hence that’s why it referred to as Population II star.

Population III stars are first generation stars, forming about 150 million years after the Big Bang, and they have no metals (meaning no elements heavier than helium). No Population III stars have been detected so far, because first generation stars, then be all very massive, and very short-lived stars, that have become blackholes, or gone supernova, so trace or remnants of the supernovae have left no trace for us to detect now.

Anyway, back to my original points. All these examples I have given you, are examples of distances and ages of stars. So when astronomers talk of “light years” that they are referring to distance of star from another object (eg from the Earth, from the Sun, or from the galactic centre of the Milky Way). They are not referring to the star’s or galaxy’s age.

You have made mistake of confusing the article referring to the galaxy’s distance with the age of the galaxy. The light years given to COSMOS-AzTEC-1 referred to its distance from the MW, not its age.

Anyway, once again, you pick astronomy articles, which you have misunderstood what they are saying.

 

[gnostic]

I'm only making a judgement of your argument and character there.

But by your logic you can't judge science since you aren't an expert. In fact, from the looks of it, you aren't even a novice. But i have studied ancient mythology. Slavic, Finnic, Norse / Germanic, Chinese, Indian etc.

Probably more than you in fact.

Specifically, even your mythology seems to be a blanket amalgamation of your irrational thoughts.

/E: I make the claim that instead of studying ancient mythology, you have studied new age crap.

That’s Native’s problems.

He is trying to give modern interpretations to ancient myths from the Egyptians, twisting both modern astronomy and myths to meet with “his concept” of the Milky Way. Native is overanalysing Egyptian myths about Hathor.

The Egyptians don’t really understand the Milky Way, and doesn’t explain the science, but to Native, he think the ancient Egyptians know more about the Milky Way than astronomers today.

Not only he doesn’t understand science behind cosmology, he isn’t understanding ancient myths.

I have had this same argument with him, in another thread, and it showed that he don’t understand science as well as he thinks he do, and demonstrated repeatedly that he cannot learn from his mistakes when corrrected.

Yes, he does New Age woo-woo crap to the ancient myths, indeed.

 

[Native]

Again, I did NOT say that time 'made' the conservation laws. I said that time is *required* to even state them.

As for thinking critically....we do so well enough to reject your nonsense.

This is STILL nonsense. "Time" is just a human made measuring concept. It is MOTION itself and alone which is connected to the conservation law.

 

[Native]

In the article you quoted, it stated the distance of COSMOS-AzTEC-1 being “12.4 billion light years away” from our galaxy, not the age of this galaxy being “12.4 billion years old”.

So what? The point is that the scientist - once again - are taken by surprise of yet another anomalistic discovery.

As to the rest of your informations, I´m aware of these - and where the "standard conventions" fails.

 

[Native]

That’s Native’s problems.

He is trying to give modern interpretations to ancient myths from the Egyptians, twisting both modern astronomy and myths to meet with “his concept” of the Milky Way. Native is overanalysing Egyptian myths about Hathor.

The Egyptians don’t really understand the Milky Way, and doesn’t explain the science, but to Native, he think the ancient Egyptians know more about the Milky Way than astronomers today.

With your psychological fairy tale approach to ancient mythology and the creation stories, you cannot tell and judge at all.

 

[Native]

I know one person in this thread who literally believes in this fairy tale level of explanations.

Hint:
It's not polymath257
It's not darkstorm
It's not blu2
It's not me

When a person is lost of arguments, he takes on personal matters.

 

[gnostic]

So what? The point is that the scientist - once again - are taken by surprise of yet another anomalistic discovery.

As to the rest of your informations, I´m aware of these - and where the "standard conventions" fails.

I am not concern with new discoveries, and I don’t think scientists are scare of anything new.

You are stubbornly ignorant, Native.

Science allow for scientific theory to be revised, corrected, modified, and even replaced, when there are more conclusive evidences. That’s the good thing about science, it has mechanism to correct any mistakes.

Scientific theories can always be questioned and challenged, particularly if there are new discoveries and new evidences, sometimes allow for replacement.

No scientific theories or laws are infallible.

The fact that you had misread and misunderstood the article, and refused to accept corrections to your mistakes, let alone admitting you have made them, just show pathetic you are.

As to the articles, I am not concerned with the discoveries, nor alarmed by it. What I alarmed that you keep thinking you know better than everyone else.

Again, in this latest thread you have made, I am close to ignoring you, because you are too prideful to admit making any mistake. You have beeen corrected so many times, but you refused to learn from your mistakes.

The question do you touch on subject that you don’t understand. Science is definitely not your forte, and yet you think know better than everyone else.

How about trying to learn what others have to explain to you, instead of arguing over something you don’t understand?

 

[gnostic]

With your psychological fairy tale approach to ancient mythology and the creation stories, you cannot tell and judge at all.

No, Native.

My approach is to understand the myths the way they were written, instead of your application of misguided modern new age interpretations to the myths.

Since, the last thread you and I were debating the Egyptian myths, it is you who are trying to rewrite the myths to fit with your new age belief.

I have tried to leave them alone, trying not too overanalyse them.

And for your information, I don’t use psychology on these myths, because I have never taken a single psychology subject in my life. I am not Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves or Carl Jung.

And second, I have also not taken any course or subject on comparative mythology.

All my research on myths and my websites (Timeless Myths and Dark Mirrors Of Heaven) come from me buying translations of ancient and medieval literature, reading them for myself. I don’t care what other modern mythologists have to say about the myths, not unless they can point to me for other sources that I can read.

You may have taken up a course on Comparative Mythology, so good for you, but from my past and present experiences with debating with you, I have never been less impressed with what you would call “knowledge” on myths.

If anything, I think may have read more than I have, but you understand less.

 

[Native]

I am not concern with new discoveries, and I don’t think scientists are scare of anything new.

I think new discoveries are the very foundation in the scientific method in order to revise and develop the cosmological ideas. And I newer said that scientists are scared of new discoveries. I just said that scientists were surprised - and this is of course because their theoretic predictability was proven wrong.

Science allow for scientific theory to be revised, corrected, modified, and even replaced, when there are more conclusive evidences. That’s the good thing about science, it has mechanism to correct any mistakes.

I know, and I´ve heard and read of this for decades, but the standing tendencies is that new contradictive discoveries don´t make scientists to take another approaches.

Just take the about 100 year old "dark matter" issue. This should have been solved long ago just by revising/discarding the very gravitational ideas of celestial motions and take on the other fundamental forces and it´s qualitative laws, forces and motions.

The fact that you had misread and misunderstood the article, and refused to accept corrections to your mistakes, let alone admitting you have made them, just show pathetic you are.

I didn´t deny that I maybe misunderstood what you are claiming, did I? Anyone could read what the article said and my point was JUST to show an example where scientists were surprised by an anomalous discovery which indicates something important is missing in their theory of Big Bang.

Again, in this latest thread you have made, I am close to ignoring you, because you are too prideful to admit making any mistake. You have beeen corrected so many times, but you refused to learn from your mistakes.

Speaking of "correction". Modern cosmological science is corrected by discoveries lots of times and this happens all along. Seen from this perspective, I think you should take a more humble approach to what you judge is wrong and correct in alternative thoughts of the cosmic question.

 

[Native]

All my research on myths and my websites (Timeless Myths and Dark Mirrors Of Heaven) come from me buying translations of ancient and medieval literature, reading them for myself. I don’t care what other modern mythologists have to say about the myths, not unless they can point to me for other sources that I can read.

This is very much as my own personal approach.

I´ve read lots volumes of Comparative Mythology and Comparative Religion. Numerous scholars have had their meanings on this or that, but when it comes to the very sources of the mythical and religious interpretations, they almost all lack the astronomical and cosmological knowledge and thus they also misses the very meaning of the numerous Myths of Creation.

In such cases the ONLY possible way is to go to the mythical sources and re-interpret these.

And when the creation as such concerns our cosmological conditions, this is of course important to connect the myths of creation to the relevant astronomical/cosmological realms in the ancient known/observed part of the Universe.

Somewhat, the same problem, sort of, also goes with the modern explanation of the Solar System formation. This explanations is disconnected from the overall conditions in our Milky Way in where the Solar System is an integrated part of the galactic orbital motion and formation. When disconnecting this fact, modern scientists also misses the overall conditions and explanations.

I can recommend one of my personal favorite authors:

“The Night of the Gods”, by John O'Neill, Part 1-2.

Part 1 can be read online or downloaded ad PDF files here: The Night of the Gods

Part 2 can be bought here:

http://www.amazon.com/Night-Gods-Part-John-ONeill/dp/076615159X

 

[gnostic]

I think new discoveries are the very foundation in the scientific method in order to revise and develop the cosmological ideas. And I newer said that scientists are scared of new discoveries.

C'mon, Native.

All I hear that scientists being scare of this discovery, only come from you, and quite frankly, I don't trust your words.

Please, show your sources that BB cosmologists are scared, because the article never mention BB requiring revision and modification.

Again, the only words about revisions being required, are only coming from you.

 

[Native]

All I hear that scientists being scare of this discovery, only come from you, and quite frankly, I don't trust your words.

Please, show your sources that BB cosmologists are scared, because the article never mention BB requiring revision and modification.

I NEWER mentioned the term "scare" at all.

(But maybe even some scientists deep inside really are scared for loosing their job and butter on the bread. One can also imagine that a personal deviation from the collective conventional agreement is a serious hinder for claiming alternative ideas in science) (I certainly knows what THAT feels like)

Again, the only words about revisions being required, are only coming from you.

Not at all. The need of revision and paradigme shift is frequently mentioned, even in scientific articles. And of course, this revision and shift is the very basics in real scientific methods. And the many different approaches to, for instants a Big Bang, is in fact the very evidence of the need for revision and rethinking.

Read also this List of Unsolved Problems in Physics which ALL needs revising, new thinking and new solutions.

 

[Darkstorn]

When a person is lost of arguments, he takes on personal matters.

-----------------
Obviously you haven´t got further on in your mythical understanding than to the level of mumbo jumbo and fairy tales. Otherwise you would at least have understood some of the general ideas of ancient myths and their world perspective, which I´m writing of here.

NO, latest i somewhat accused you for not having understood the myths you´ve read and studied.

Do you literary believe in this fairy tale level of explanation?

----------
The first sentence is utterly inconsistent nonsense! So the Big Bang itself made the very conservation law out of nothing!?

How can you get yourself and your Master Grade in Physics to write or quote such nonsense?

Oh yes, it is very convenient to have several models This just mirrors the confusion in modern cosmology.

The second sentence isn´t much better either. Why would any sane person use the term of a Big Bang if there was matter and energy in balanced motion in the Universe before all these Big Bangs?

Compared to this Big Bang nonsens, ancient cultures describes the creation in cyclical terms where everything was/is eternally changing between stages of formation, dissolution and re-formation in the Universe. Now, THERE is a natural conservation law for you.

I agree entirely, in that you lost. In fact, you lost before i even came here to notify you of the fact. Because you were doing that crap way before that.

This is literally 5 minutes of "searching." Do you want more examples?

/E: I literally posted in this thread only to call you out on trying to insult Polymath. And you make the argument that people who go into personalities lose arguments. This is very self-defeating, i'm sure you can see that.

 

[Polymath257]

This is STILL nonsense. "Time" is just a human made measuring concept. It is MOTION itself and alone which is connected to the conservation law.

Can you *state* that conservation law in full generality? I would bet not.

 

[Polymath257]

I think new discoveries are the very foundation in the scientific method in order to revise and develop the cosmological ideas. And I newer said that scientists are scared of new discoveries. I just said that scientists were surprised - and this is of course because their theoretic predictability was proven wrong.



I know, and I´ve heard and read of this for decades, but the standing tendencies is that new contradictive discoveries don´t make scientists to take another approaches.

Just take the about 100 year old "dark matter" issue. This should have been solved long ago just by revising/discarding the very gravitational ideas of celestial motions and take on the other fundamental forces and it´s qualitative laws, forces and motions.

That *was* tried. It was called MOND. And it failed. It turns out that even with modified laws for motion, dark matter is *still* required to explain the details.

I didn´t deny that I maybe misunderstood what you are claiming, did I? Anyone could read what the article said and my point was JUST to show an example where scientists were surprised by an anomalous discovery which indicates something important is missing in their theory of Big Bang.

No, it doesn't. It just shows there are phenomena that we hadn't seen before that we have to investigate and understand. Surprises happen in *every* area of study. That doesn't mean the whole subject has to be discarded and re-done. It just means we have a bit more work to do.

Speaking of "correction". Modern cosmological science is corrected by discoveries lots of times and this happens all along. Seen from this perspective, I think you should take a more humble approach to what you judge is wrong and correct in alternative thoughts of the cosmic question.

Yes, science is in the business of getting better and better approximations to the truth. Since we can *never* know that we actually have the truth, that is the next best thing to do. And yes, in any area of study, there are always new things coming up that are surprising. The universe is wildly diverse. But that in no way means we don't have the basics figured out.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Moderation Post ****

This is to remind everyone of rule 1:


1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

Please play nice!

 

[Native]

I agree entirely, in that you lost. In fact, you lost before i even came here to notify you of the fact. Because you were doing that crap way before that.

This is literally 5 minutes of "searching." Do you want more examples?

/E: I literally posted in this thread only to call you out on trying to insult Polymath. And you make the argument that people who go into personalities lose arguments. This is very self-defeating, i'm sure you can see that.

So your prime purpose was/is to be intrigant and nothing else. This is just typical for a person who lacks factual arguments himself.

 

[Native]

Can you *state* that conservation law in full generality? I would bet not.

Can you argue against my notion of that it is MOTION and not TIME that determines the conservation law?

 

[Native]

*** Moderation Post ****

This is to remind everyone of rule 1:

Thanks a lot for this reminder