Forums → WEPR → whats the difference?

another thing for you to remember about the bible.

According to recent scholarship, the Torah, the five books of Moses of which Genesis is the first, achieved their final form during the 2nd Temple period, probably between 500 and 200 B.C.E., with Deuteronomy being the first of the books to achieve its final redacted form.

One needs to remember, however, that in preliterate or largely oral cultures, where the ability to read and write is restricted to a scribal elite, oral transmission tends to be far more consistent than it is in literate societies. As literacy increases, our oral memory antrophies. The Homeric epics probably began in the 12th Century B.C.E. and were not put into written from until the 7th Century B.C.E. but apparently remained largely intact. The likelihood is that Israelite oral transmission in the period prior to the written canon was equally accurate, although any oral transmission goes through a process of simplification, including the use of symbols for complex concepts.

Grace be unto and peace.
Source(s):
Karel van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007.

oral transmission tends to be far more consistent than it is in literate societies.

Don't say that Jews/Christians borrowed from the Greeks, when the Bible was written earlier.

Nichodemus, you just said your self, entropy always increases, and since the universe must of been around for forever, (unless you are a theist), then entropy would of increased to the point where nothing can possibly happen.

Don't say that Jews/Christians borrowed from the Greeks, when the Bible was written earlier.

Actually what I remember from chemistry is that the entropy of the universe does increase. Reactions prefer to flow in the direction of increased entropy; you can make it flow to the direction of lower entropy but that means rising the entropy elsewhere; and in total it should raise. Don't quote me for that though, it's been some time now.

Now, why was that so important? I don't see how that supports anything discussed in here..

Fun thing about entropy - infinite overlaps with null

Now, how does that influence this discussion?

Hahiha, that is partially correct. Unfortunately the second law only applies in an isolated system; yet we can debate whether it is an open or closed system till the cows come home. And even if it's either, as Hahiha said, how would this even affect evolution?

Because you are saying the universe randomly came into being 13.5 billion years ago, so explain, why did it randomly come into being at that time.

 Approximately 13.7 billion years ago the force of gravity was believed to have been as strong as the other fundamental forces, which hintsat the possibility that all the forces were unified. Inconceivably hot and dense, the state of the universe during the Planck epoch was unstable or transitory, tending to evolve, giving rise to the familiar manifestations of the fundamental forces through a process known as symmetry breaking. Modern cosmology now suggests that the Planck epoch may have inaugurated a period of unification or Grand unification epoch, and that symmetry breaking then quickly led to the era of cosmic inflation, the Inflationary epoch, during which the universe greatly expanded in scale over a very short period of time. Scientists are still studying the inner workings of this, and a thorough and complete answer is still not available. But it is still much more believable than pulling out a book without any evidence whatsoever.

What, scientists are studying something there is absolutely nothing about that can be studied, nothing about the big bang that be studied, except for the fact that galaxies are moving, but what kind of proof is that.

p.s. unless someone built a time machine, but i don't think that has happened yet.

p.p.s. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE UNIVERSE WAS LIKE AT THE TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG, why, because it happened 13.7 billion years ago, and according to the latest guesses, was completely different from our current universe.

p.p.p.s. I am not saying it didn't happen.

What, scientists are studying something there is absolutely nothing about that can be studied, nothing about the big bang that be studied, except for the fact that galaxies are moving, but what kind of proof is that.

p.p.s. WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE UNIVERSE WAS LIKE AT THE TIME BEFORE THE BIG BANG, why, because it happened 13.7 billion years ago, and according to the latest guesses, was completely different from our current universe.

Umm, Jacen. First, I still don't understand what you wanted to say with all that entropy stuff, nor do I see any kind of structure in your argumentation. Second, next time you're going to ask for an explanation: don't. If you know already that you'll answer by yelling how ridiculous it is to you and how much you don't understand it, why even care?

What, scientists are studying something there is absolutely nothing about that can be studied, nothing about the big bang that be studied, except for the fact that galaxies are moving, but what kind of proof is that.

Was listening to The Atheist Experience the other day and one of the callers brought up an interesting point. That the way the Catholic church treats saints stems back to the old Roman/Greek pantheons of having minor deities. They simply transposed the responsibilities of those deities to saints.

Now I haven't confirmed this point but I thought it was an interesting one worth discussion here.