Author Topic: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible  (Read 4588 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2018, 06:07:50 PM »
You mean the Ka'aba might be this "Petra"!? Interesting! So "the Rock" is literally a rock. I like that idea.

We had a whole series on that, under Islam.



A short version, showing that clergy simply are disingenuous, if they are even educated enough to be aware.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2018, 06:09:21 PM »
Contrary to popular belief, the universe isn't really getting any bigger. It's always been infinitely large. But its density and temperature are decreasing, which does look to us like an expansion. Even our finite observable universe isn't growing, since the horizon is fixed. Eventually there will be only a single particle, if that, in all that space as the density and temperature decrease to very near zero (10^-29 degrees K). But the universe won't be any bigger.

:-)

Tricky to define "big" with nothing to compare to.  You might be bigger than me (taller etc) ... but to what can we compare the universe?  So yes, just another example of sophistry.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2018, 06:14:45 PM »
Bigly...
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

Offline SGOS

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2018, 06:40:20 PM »
Contrary to popular belief, the universe isn't really getting any bigger. It's always been infinitely large. But its density and temperature are decreasing, which does look to us like an expansion. Even our finite observable universe isn't growing, since the horizon is fixed. Eventually there will be only a single particle, if that, in all that space as the density and temperature decrease to very near zero (10^-29 degrees K). But the universe won't be any bigger.

:-)
Does this mean that infinity, or at least its perception, has less to do with size than it does with energy?  This is interesting.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2018, 12:52:04 AM »
Contrary to popular belief, the universe isn't really getting any bigger. It's always been infinitely large. But its density and temperature are decreasing, which does look to us like an expansion. Even our finite observable universe isn't growing, since the horizon is fixed. Eventually there will be only a single particle, if that, in all that space as the density and temperature decrease to very near zero (10^-29 degrees K). But the universe won't be any bigger.

:-)

That one is pretty complicated.  It is hard to say the universe is "expanding" because that suggests there is something the universe is expanding "into".  And, at any "size", the universe is all that is.  The "infinite" part bothers me sometimes.  And I get annoyed when some scientists refer to "seeing to the start of the universe", when what they mean is "as far as we can see" via light.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline SGOS

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2018, 05:43:46 AM »
I get annoyed when some scientists refer to "seeing to the start of the universe", when what they mean is "as far as we can see" via light.
You get used to it.  I attended a lecture put on by some Cal Tech guys that used the "looking into the past" description, rather than the "far away" description.  It was disconcerting to me, but by the end, it made perfect sense.  These guys were studying the formation of galaxies, where you have to look into the past to see what galaxies look like in their early stages.  Then looking at things far away becomes looking into the past.  In fact, everything far away is the past, and what you see is not even there today, or at least in a different form.  The fact that it's far away is really of little importance beyond party conversation:  "I once saw a star that was 13 billion light years away."  Big whoop.  "What does it look like?"  "I don't know.  I can only see what it looked like 13 billion years ago.  I don't even know if it's still there."

Astronomy is about looking at the past.  No matter how far away something is, it's all in the past.  You can't see the present when you look far away.  You can only see the past.  And looking at a far away galaxy tells you nothing about the present.

It's true that both perspectives amount to the same thing, but which perspective is better is only a matter of someone's perspective.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #21 on: July 02, 2018, 06:12:41 AM »
You get used to it.  I attended a lecture put on by some Cal Tech guys that used the "looking into the past" description, rather than the "far away" description.  It was disconcerting to me, but by the end, it made perfect sense.  These guys were studying the formation of galaxies, where you have to look into the past to see what galaxies look like in their early stages.  Then looking at things far away becomes looking into the past.  In fact, everything far away is the past, and what you see is not even there today, or at least in a different form.  The fact that it's far away is really of little importance beyond party conversation:  "I once saw a star that was 13 billion light years away."  Big whoop.  "What does it look like?"  "I don't know.  I can only see what it looked like 13 billion years ago.  I don't even know if it's still there."

Astronomy is about looking at the past.  No matter how far away something is, it's all in the past.  You can't see the present when you look far away.  You can only see the past.  And looking at a far away galaxy tells you nothing about the present.

It's true that both perspectives amount to the same thing, but which perspective is better is only a matter of someone's perspective.

I used to get people annoyed decades ago saying we saw 13 billion years into the past.  A slight science knowledge as filtered in though.

Bit by bit, knowledge accumulates in spite of so many people fighting against it.  And time is relative at even local distances.  If I look at a person, technically, I am seeing the nose fractionally sooner than the rest of the face.  Fortunately, it doesn't matter much.  But it is real.

Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #22 on: July 02, 2018, 06:47:45 AM »
You get used to it.  I attended a lecture put on by some Cal Tech guys that used the "looking into the past" description, rather than the "far away" description.  It was disconcerting to me, but by the end, it made perfect sense.  These guys were studying the formation of galaxies, where you have to look into the past to see what galaxies look like in their early stages.  Then looking at things far away becomes looking into the past.  In fact, everything far away is the past, and what you see is not even there today, or at least in a different form.  The fact that it's far away is really of little importance beyond party conversation:  "I once saw a star that was 13 billion light years away."  Big whoop.  "What does it look like?"  "I don't know.  I can only see what it looked like 13 billion years ago.  I don't even know if it's still there."

Astronomy is about looking at the past.  No matter how far away something is, it's all in the past.  You can't see the present when you look far away.  You can only see the past.  And looking at a far away galaxy tells you nothing about the present.

It's true that both perspectives amount to the same thing, but which perspective is better is only a matter of someone's perspective.

But idealists can see the future, from the porch, like Palin could see Russia from her porch ;-)

Also physics is complicated ... group velocity vs phase velocity and quantum entanglement (that works outside of any velocity).

Physics (the kind that is always in the perfect future) is god, bow down and worship the academics who preach it.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 06:50:51 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Canaanite etc origins of the Bible
« Reply #23 on: July 02, 2018, 06:49:40 AM »
I used to get people annoyed decades ago saying we saw 13 billion years into the past.  A slight science knowledge as filtered in though.

Bit by bit, knowledge accumulates in spite of so many people fighting against it.  And time is relative at even local distances.  If I look at a person, technically, I am seeing the nose fractionally sooner than the rest of the face.  Fortunately, it doesn't matter much.  But it is real.

Yes, for most people, physics doesn't matter much, but it is real.  Newton mostly works.  You won't hit a brick wall at near the speed of light, ever.  And at any velocity, your odds of quantum tunneling is very small.  For electrons in transistors, the odds are more in favor.  Don't get me started on how speculative physics has lost its branes in the multiverse.

You monkeys could have tried to divert a lone string with cooking, chess or something else.  Robots, sex robots ... that diverts anyone!
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 06:51:36 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.