LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

[Ezio Auditore di Firenze]

Large Hadron Collider proves the universe was once a liquid

Coolbeans, huh?

 

[kiwimac]

Yeppers!

 

[Ezio Auditore di Firenze]

Hey Kiwimac, not to go off topic, but what is that logo in your sig?

 

[matthewgar]

heh is it just me...or does anyone else get a odd feeling from this :> The idea of the universe being liquid..is just cool :> Trying to imagine everything being a liquid heh.

Heh can't wait to see what else they discover :>

 

[Ezio Auditore di Firenze]

Actually the idea is pretty hot.

Ba-dum-tiss.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I had a discussion with someone on here before, about a year and a half ago, about the early universe being liquid. So this isn't 'news', per se, but it's still bloody exciting

 

[MorkandMindy]

Large Hadron Collider proves the universe was once a liquid

Coolbeans, huh?

2 Peter 3v5: 'For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'


They could have saved millions by just opening a Bible because it's all there, everything true in modern science is there.

 

[cerad]

They could have saved millions by just opening a Bible because it's all there, everything true in modern science is there.

So, according to the bible, the mass of the Higgs boson particle is?

Or does your book only apply after science discovers something?

 

[Chesterton]

LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

What was it before that?

Once [sic] when I was drunk and silly at a party, I was admonished because I "didn't know when to stop." But physicists don't know when to start.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

2 Peter 3v5: 'For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'


They could have saved millions by just opening a Bible because it's all there, everything true in modern science is there.

Even if we grant that a literal interpretation of the King James Bible is entirely consistent with modern science, you forget that we can't just open the Bible, see that it has some vague mention of the Earth and water, and call it a day. The Bible isn't a reliable document. It's only by spending millions that we actually know the truth - and it's nothing like what the Bible describes.

The article describes the very early universe as being a hot plasma, the mechanics of which are such that it behaved like a liquid - not that it was literal H[sub]2[/sub]O. It says that this was in the very early universe - a long time before the Earth was even formed.

So the Bible was right, inasmuch as it mentioned a liquid. That's it. All the major details were lost in a sea of metaphor - if they were even there at all.

But by all means, predict the next major discovery by science. If it's all there in the Bible...

 

[Son of the King]

So the Bible was right, inasmuch as it mentioned a liquid. That's it. All the major details were lost in a sea of metaphor - if they were even there at all.

But by all means, predict the next major discovery by science. If it's all there in the Bible...

Could you imagine how big the Bible would be if God gave all the details? The numerals for pi itself would take a long time to write down. Thank God He gave us only what we need to know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Could you imagine how big the Bible would be if God gave all the details? The numerals for pi itself would take a long time to write down. Thank God He gave us only what we need to know.

Like medicine and agriculture and the cures for HIV/AIDS and cancer... oh, wait...

Besides, it was MorkandMindy who said the Bible contained scientific information - if God is pressed for space, why give us details about the state of the early universe? That fact has been utterly useless to us, and now that we've discovered it for ourselves, its presence in the Bible will forever be utterly useless. So if you're right, why did God want us to have it?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Like medicine and agriculture and the cures for HIV/AIDS and cancer... oh, wait...

Besides, it was MorkandMindy who said the Bible contained scientific information - if God is pressed for space, why give us details about the state of the early universe? That fact has been utterly useless to us, and now that we've discovered it for ourselves, its presence in the Bible will forever be utterly useless. So if you're right, why did God want us to have it?

You can't say the Bible is accurate on moral issues but not on scientific ones.

In Old Testament times science didn't exist as a separate discipline, and by 2020 the understanding of the way the human brain is wired may make morality into a subset of biology, and game theory. So the distinction may not exist in the future either.

 

[Targ]

2 Peter 3v5: 'For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

They could have saved millions by just opening a Bible because it's all there, everything true in modern science is there.

It's not talking about planet 'Earth', it's talking about the 'earth' as another word for 'land'. It also says nothing about the entire universe being liquid. If you have earth at the same time as water then you're not meeting the requirements of the original post, which was that the entire universe was liquid, not just a small part of it.

 

[Bushido216]

You can't say the Bible is accurate on moral issues but not on scientific ones.

In Old Testament times science didn't exist as a separate discipline, and by 2020 the understanding of the way the human brain is wired may make morality into a subset of biology, and game theory. So the distinction may not exist in the future either.

The Bible doesn't make scientific claims.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You can't say the Bible is accurate on moral issues but not on scientific ones.

Sure you can. The Bible is a story-book detailing God's relationship with the Jews. It was never meant to convey scientific information (the story of Genesis being a prime example of that).

In Old Testament times science didn't exist as a separate discipline, and by 2020 the understanding of the way the human brain is wired may make morality into a subset of biology, and game theory. So the distinction may not exist in the future either.

Nonetheless, the Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook. It's innumerable scientific errors are a testament to that.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Could you imagine how big the Bible would be if God gave all the details? The numerals for pi itself would take a long time to write down. Thank God He gave us only what we need to know.

Can you imagine how small the Bible would be if you removed all the contradictions, discrepencies and outright fallacies?

 

[juvenissun]

2 Peter 3v5: 'For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water'


They could have saved millions by just opening a Bible because it's all there, everything true in modern science is there.

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Nonetheless, the Bible was never meant to be taken as a scientific textbook.

Was it deliberately written to be inaccurate?
Does putting in factual errors would lend weight to his moral advice?


God mentions that He made the firmament:

Gen 1
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

and that the firmament holds the sun, moon and stars and that's purpose is to separate the water above the firmament from the seas below.

Without a firmament there would be a lot more water down here!

It's innumerable scientific errors are a testament to that.

Again, I don't see how throwing in inaccuracies could possibly help give credibility to God's message to man.



Science should devote more time to proving the Bible is true instead of disagreeing with it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Was it deliberately written to be inaccurate?
Does putting in factual errors would lend weight to his moral advice?

Its factual accuracy is irrelevant. The accuracy of The Emperor's New Clothes has no bearing on its moral. Likewise, the OT stories were never meant to be factually accurate - the people were writing down their fables and myths, legends and stories, not eye-witness reports. Their aim wasn't to be factually accurate, so they took no pains to be so.

Without a firmament there would be a lot more water down here!

The firmament being permanently punctured when Apollo 11 landed on the Moon. Go figure.

Again, I don't see how throwing in inaccuracies could possibly help give credibility to God's message to man.

See above. Inaccuracies exist because the Bible is a storybook, not a textbook, and so the literal accuracy of the texts was irrelevant - the moral is clear enough.
It's only over-zealous theists today who think, without warrant or reason, that the Bible was intended to be taken literally.

Science should devote more time to proving the Bible is true instead of disagreeing with it.

Why? Surely the same could be said for the Qu'ran, the Vedic texts, etc? Indeed, going out with the sole intention of trying to prove the Bible right is what lead to people realising that it's not factually accurate. There was no Flood, there is no 'firmament', the Earth wasn't created in six days, etc. They're stories. Even the Bible doesn't say they should be taken literally.