Comparing cosmologies, ancient and modern.

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

newtonian

Guest
Alpha_Tauri - Light would have become discernible on the surface of the earth about 48,000 years ago - as per your post and the beginning of the first creative day starting in Genesis 1:3.<br /><br />Remember, the Hebrew imperfect verb state is used here - light was gradually coming to be - progressive action not yet complete.<br /><br />Much later, the stars and moon became visible and were made to appear in the sky (Hebrew for make here is not the same as Hebrew for create in Genesis 1:1) on the 4th creative day (Gen.1:14-19).<br /><br />The ground rules I already stated, but you should note that Newton used similar ground rules in his Biblical and scientific research.<br /><br />K-40 clock, Potassium argon, has a far too long half-life for dating 7,000 year periods. It is very useful for dating earth's shield rock since these were formed about 4.5 billion years ago, which is close to the half-life of Potassium 40.<br /><br />In short, it is hard to read seconds on a clock with only an hour hand.<br /><br />Argon is a major constituent of earth's atmosphere, and argon contamination is a serious problem in dating rock that has been through the atmosphere, as at the Olduvai Gorge (Lucy, australopithecines, etc.). <br /><br />Research has shown in the latter case that this is definitely a problem with that specific strata. <br /><br />However, earth's shield rock is much less disturbed and therefore more reliable in Potassium argon dating.<br /><br />Also, dating a contaminated rock at Olduvai at 1 million years vs. 5,000 years involves a relatively small amount of argon - due to the long half-life of Potassium 40.<br /><br />I will detail this further if you would like me to. <br /><br />Meanwhile, you posted on the Biblical astronomy thread concerning Hindu cosmology which I will post on here - you posted:<br /><br />"You referred to Psalm 90 in another thread. This is consistent with the concepts in that verse.<br /><br />The Vedic verses actually expand on that concept quite considera
 
A

alpha_taur1

Guest
Light would have become discernible on the surface of the earth about 48,000 years ago? <br /><br />I think we need to end this discussion here before I get disrespectful. There are just too many flavours of Creationism around to even contemplate a counter argument. Basically as I said in another post, Creationists need to settle on one interpretation, otherwise we'll be from here to eternity discussing the various types of Creationism. <br /><br />I don't believe in OT biblical accounts literally. I know that you believe that it is the word of God, but which version of the interpretation is the word of God? There are too many. <br /><br />I do however like to read such accounts for what I believe they are - attempts by ancient man to interpret the cosmos. There are so many commonalities between ancient texts because a ripping yarn was just too good to waste, and what we see are oral traditions finally preserved in writing. We see elements of Sumerian mythology in the story of Moses, likewise with Gilgamesh and Noah's flood. Whenever that happens, we get very characteristic exaggerations. (cf The Song of Roland v Actual Historical accounts).<br /><br />I do believe that religions are invaluable records of past cultures, and to that extent they are extremely precious. They also come from a quieter era which did not have light pollution and atmospheric emissions. They didn't have soundblasters pumping out such disharmony that you can't think a clear though because of the cacophony. <br />This was a time when man could stare up at the cosmos and marvel at the incredible sight that few city dwellers today can see. I believe that contemplating the cosmos in such a pure unpolluted form must give rise to some intuitive truths. I know this from experience. Find a really remote area free of clouds and atmospheric moisture and try it yourself. Look at the grandeur of the heavens, the intricate structure of the Milky Way Galaxy, and capture the essence of the feelings that you e
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Resurecting this thread for comparison with the current thread on who discovered the earth is round, and specifically pseudepigrapha cosmology.
 
H

hicksfan

Guest
I couldn't agree more with your assessment that early accounts of creationism were early attempts by ancient man to interpret the cosmos. I think going by the information they had before them, most critiques not containing intentionalism were quite impressive.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
hicksfan - Hi! This is an old thread!<br /><br />So how do you feel about comparitive cosmology? <br /><br />Did you note how Biblical astronomy is accurate scientifically while other accounts, such as the pseudipigrapha, are totally unscientific?<br /><br />For a few brief examples in review:<br /><br />Genesis 1:1,2 - heaven and earth had a beginning vs. Aristotle's eternal universe & later steady state theory.<br /><br />Isaiah 40:22 - earth is round vs. cube with many levels of hell fire over the edge, as in the Pseudipigrapha.<br /><br />Isaiah 40:22 - heaven is stretching out vs. collapsing universe models<br /><br />Job 26:7 - earth hung upon nothing vs. earth on turtles, etc in Hindu cosmology & Atlas holding earth up.<br /><br />Genesis 1&2 - Accurate creation account vs. Babylonian and Egyptian mythological accounts.<br /><br />And the hundreds of flood accounts containing mythological embellishments vs. the scientifically accurate Biblical flood account vs. ice age models.<br /><br />Etc.<br /><br />Thank you for resurecting this thread!
 
N

newtonian

Guest
On the Evolution vs. Creation thread in Phenomena section, on 10/11/06, green_meklar posted to me this question:<br /><br />Hmm...let's not be biased here. Do you know of any other religious texts that bear no contradictions with scientific observations? Not in their literal meaning, but when interpreted in the same way in which you interpret the Bible?<br /><br />As that constitutes tangent to that threads theme, I linked to this thread since meklar’s question does relate to comparative ancient cosmologies, and interpretations thereof. <br /><br />Note, for example, my past posts on the Pseudepigrapha.<br /><br />Here is a brief quote among those posted above which shows how unscientific pseudepigrapha cosmology is:<br /><br />The chapter's conclusion is interesting: (concerning the sun) <br /><br />"As for the intensity of its light, it is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; nevertheless, (the sun and moon) are equal in regard to their (respective) sizes." - 1 Enoch 72:37 <br /><br />I will shortly add another fresh quote - please be patient as I have to study the text, and hand type in the quotes.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Let's see, you replied to yourself and quoted the bible. Why am I not shocked? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
N

newtonian

Guest
OK, you last three posters. <br /><br />Why are you posting on this thread if you are not interested in comparing cosmologies?<br /><br />You should note that this thread has been in Ask the Astronomer for a long time.<br /><br />Cosmology is a legitimate subject here - at least it has been for years.<br /><br />Now, why not post something on one of the many different cosmologies out there - in other words - actually contribute to this thread.<br /><br />Or do I expect too much - that you would actually be interested in researching comparative cosmologies?<br /><br />
 
N

newtonian

Guest
For green_meklar:<br /><br />#61 continued – the Pseudepigrapha.<br /><br />1 Enoch 17:4,5 refers to “the occidental fire which receives every setting of the sun.”<br /><br />1 Enoch 18:2 – “I saw the four winds which bear the earth as well as the firmament of heaven.”<br /><br />1 Enoch 18:4 – “I saw the winds which turn the heaven and cause the star to set – the sun as well as all the stars. I saw the souls carried by the clouds.”<br /><br />1 Enoch 18: 14-16 – “ This place is the (ultimate) end of heaven and earth: it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven. And the stars which roll over upon the fire, they are the ones which have transgressed the commandments of God from the beginning of their rising because they did not arrive punctually.”<br /><br />Note how different this ancient Jewish cosmology is compared with Biblical cosmology – despite the fact that both ancient sources were written by Jews!<br /><br />I am posting this because of the question asked on a different thread as I noted in my last post.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
You all, I have edited my opening post to consider a #63:<br /><br />Ekpyrotic Universe theory<br /><br />This is new to me, and as it is modern cosmology it may be of more interest to you all.<br /><br />I am starting with an SDC article on this:<br /><br />collision of branes<br /><br />'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory By Robert Roy BrittSenior Science Writerposted: 02:33 pm ET18 April 2001<br /><br />As this is new to me, I will post in more detail later after I study it. Feel free to post on it while I am studying.<br /><br />Meanwhile here is an excerpt especially relevant to thread theme:<br /><br />"The term ekpyrosis means "conflagration" in Greek, and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the universe is created in a sudden burst of fire, not unlike the collision between three-dimensional worlds in our model. The current universe evolves from the initial fire. However, in the Stoic notion, the process may repeat itself in the future. This, too, is possible in our scenario in principle if there is more than one brane and, consequently, more than one collision. We plan to discuss this possibility in future work, along with further speculations about what preceded the collision that made our present universe."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts