If 0+0=0 and 0-0=0, 0x0=0, Why is 0/0 indeterminate?

[IsaacNewton]

A great question OL, I would suggest getting this book.

Lawrence Krauss » A Universe From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss is one of the most respected theorectical physicists in the world. The book is written in a way everyday people can understand, most of it anyway. The universe coming into existence from nothing is actually supported by the math.

 

[OldLady]

OMG, someone who understands my question. It began out of a discussion about the universe being created from "nothing." To me, it is certainly "the riddle that is hidden."
Thank you so much for not calling me stupid this morning, Mr. Beale.

The philosophical problem of creation out of nothing is solved with the 5 or so proofs of God.

As the First Cause, the Philosophy God resolves this issue with a dilemma -- God in Philosophy has always existed and must always exist.

However the immediate corollary is that we too have always existed as well in some form or other. That is a paradox.

Dilemma's create paradoxes.

What I wonder is whether cats and dogs have existed in some form or other too forever? Or are they just cute cuddly furry machines that reincarnate?

Not following you, yio. To my way of thinking, if you believe in God the way he is explained in mainstream Christianity, eventually you end up asking the question, Where did God come from? Saying he has always been is the same as saying nothing comes out of nothing. If you can't possibly answer the question with a theory, you've got the wrong theory, imo.

Well you are talking about one topic -- Theism and in particular Christian theism -- whereas I was calling attention to Philosophy instead.

In Philosophy you start with nothing. There are no preconceived notions in Philosophy.

Actually, I wasn't trying to talk about theism, I was trying to wrap my head around the science of it. Posters keep straying into the religion thing, which is interesting, but not exactly where I was trying to head.

 

[OldLady]

flacaltenn it looks like my @-function died.

And I cannot receive @'s either.

I'll get back to our PM and make some suggestions..

I think it's actually Karma. LOL

 

[OldLady]

A great question OL, I would suggest getting this book.

Lawrence Krauss » A Universe From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss is one of the most respected theorectical physicists in the world. The book is written in a way everyday people can understand, most of it anyway. The universe coming into existence from nothing is actually supported by the math.

Thanks, Isaac. I'll check it out, although the last word in your post made the sweat pop out on my forehead. This all started when Xelor linked me to an article yesterday that I couldn't understand, saying it explains the mathematical proof. He thinks I can't understand the concepts, not knowing all the words. But I'll give it a try.

 

[cnelsen]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

When the numbers don't add up or make sense, ask an economist.

Sure, it won't make sense but they will tell you what you want to hear.

A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?

 

[IsaacNewton]

A great question OL, I would suggest getting this book.

Lawrence Krauss » A Universe From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss is one of the most respected theorectical physicists in the world. The book is written in a way everyday people can understand, most of it anyway. The universe coming into existence from nothing is actually supported by the math.

Thanks, Isaac. I'll check it out, although the last word in your post made the sweat pop out on my forehead. This all started when Xelor linked me to an article yesterday that I couldn't understand, saying it explains the mathematical proof. He thinks I can't understand the concepts, not knowing all the words. But I'll give it a try.

Well some subjects are just hard to convey in a very simple way, Krauss does a good job of it though, on the whole.

 

[hadit]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

Because, in mathematics, you need to be able to reverse the equation and arrive where you started. Think of it this way:

4 X 2 = 8
8 / 2 = 4

4 X 1 = 4
4 / 1 = 4

See the pattern?

4 X 0 = 0
2 X 0 = 0

0 / 0 = 4? 2?

That's why it's undetermined.

 

[MisterBeale]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

When the numbers don't add up or make sense, ask an economist.

Sure, it won't make sense but they will tell you what you want to hear.

 

[OldLady]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

When the numbers don't add up or make sense, ask an economist.

Sure, it won't make sense but they will tell you what you want to hear.

LOL

 

[Iceweasel]

The universe coming into existence from nothing is actually supported by the math.

No it isn't. You bought snake oil.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The universe coming into existence from nothing is actually supported by the math.

No it isn't. You bought snake oil.

To learn these things requires reading, or even these days at least watching an hour long video online of which Lawrence Krauss and others like Michio Kaku have many, but reading and learning are kryptonite to conservatives.

Ignorance is the savior in conservative thought. Talking snakes are science.

 

[BULLDOG]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

If nothing else, just put it in the category of "that's just the way it is". Accept it and move on.

 

[OldLady]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

It helps to think of the actual language and what you are doing: e.g., 6 / 3 = 2 means you have six apples and divide them into three groups, you have two apples in each group. But if you have six apples and divide them up into no groups ... and it becomes irrational because you can't divide something into nothingness.

Thanks!

If nothing else, just put it in the category of "that's just the way it is". Accept it and move on.

Not into solving that mystery today, are you? Fine. I'm curious; that okay with you?

 

[anotherlife]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

We can do it by example, how about this, cut up a bread to infinitely thin slices. Then you will need to take away infinitely many slices to consume your original loaf of bread so the result of your division is negative infinity.

Now take many infinitely thin slices to make up your original loaf of bread. You wil need all the infinitely many slices to reconstruct your loaf of bread so your result is positive infinity.

But what if your slices are not infinitely thin but zero thin. Since 0+0=0, not even infinitely many slices will give you back your bread. This is why the division by zero is a special case, breaks every number even infinity itself.

So it is axiomatically defined as error. It's effect is to cause a discontinuity in everything it touches, a singularity if you like. The division by zero is frequently used in mathematics in many calculations for example the estimation of system stability in the general sense, where the locations of such divisions are called the poles of the system.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

So where did the Universe come from when there was nothing in the beginning? Not a sermon, just a question?

What is truly astounding is how closely the biblical version of events parallels what modern science believes.

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
See Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"



The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Good God, PC is in her pulpit with the same ding-a-ling message.

The question was concerning how the mathematical constructs we use actually work, and why the work. It has zero to do with politics or religion. For those of impaired mentality, I guess any conversation has something to do with dingbat politics, and really stupid religion. For the sane, there are many questions outside of the religious arena, or that of politics.

 

[G.T.]

Anybody being an asshole to OldLady can suck a fuckin cock through a straw made of pvc

 

[Old Rocks]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

So where did the Universe come from when there was nothing in the beginning? Not a sermon, just a question?

What is truly astounding is how closely the biblical version of events parallels what modern science believes.

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
See Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"



The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

That IS fascinating. Eastern spiritual thought also seems to intuitively understand particle physics, the cosmic dance of the universe. This is my (probably cracked) theory: Humankind has been on this Earth for a couple hundred thousand years and we are finding evidence of older and older civilizations every year. I believe that at one time there were civilizations as advanced as ours in their understanding of science and they were so far back in time that evidence of their existence has vanished from the record. It lives on, though, in the oldest of the stories.

Hmmmmmm.................. We would have found the equivalent of their Coke bottles. But most of our ancestors were just as smart as us, just had not yet developed writing to communicate from generation to generation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is in response to the deeply indoctrinated disciples that believe matter can come from nothing? Good luck with that, you're better off with a Moonie.

I really liked that not-so-subtle dig.

So where did the Universe come from when there was nothing in the beginning? Not a sermon, just a question?

What is truly astounding is how closely the biblical version of events parallels what modern science believes.

Now...about the origin of the universe.....and the fact that modern science now accepts the very same order of events as Genesis.....

1. God’s first command in Genesis is “Let there be light.” Nor is this the only introduction of light in the Genesis creation account, but it is the first, it represents the beginning of the formation of our solar system. And that was ‘The Big Bang’…some 13,700 million years ago. Quite an event…it lasted just 10 to the minus 35th seconds, beginning the universe, generating time and space, as well as all the matter and energy that the universe would ever, ever, contain! Big Bang…explosion….energy….light. But no atoms to form the sun for some time. Light…but no sun? So says science. And so says Genesis. Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter two.

a. For reference, Genesis 1, verses 1-4: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.



2. Modern science has largely revealed the earth’s history with respect to the land and the seas. Coincidently, the first chapter of the Bible relates a formation, a creation narrative, strangely similar to scientific understanding.


a. Genesis 1: 6-10…”And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dryland appear: and it was so. And God called the dry landEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it wasgood.


b. “The formation of the sea as well as the land is chosen as the second stage in the creation on the Bible’s first page. Modern science reveals that land and sea certainly were in place before the next stage in the scientific account of the history of the universe.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p.54. What a coincidence….or confluence.


Curious, the author of Genesis lived in a landlocked region; and Moses wandered in the desert, not along the coast. Yet…sea and land appear in this prominent position in Genesis. Must be a coincidence….



3. The opening page of Genesis asserts that plant life appeared after the seas were formed, and names specifically, grass, herbs and fruit trees. According to the author of Genesis, this is the stage where life actually begins: this is the first mention life of any kind. Plant life. Yet, the simple forms of life that are considered plant life were not discovered until a couple of millennia after Genesis was completed. So…how come Genesis mentions grass, herbs, and fruit trees at precisely this moment on the creation narrative? Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” chapter four.


a. Genesis 1: 11-12 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


b. “ From about 400 million years back to 600 million years, all kinds of complex multicellular life would have been confined to the waters of the earth….Our world's ecosystems depend upon photosynthesis to construct the fuel that all life runs on; in an ancient world with conditions similar to today's, you would need plants (as organisms that can make complex "fuel" molecules using simple building blocks and energy available from the environment, plants are known as one type of autotrophs, or "self-feeders") to evolve first, or there would be no bottom link to the food chain.” Biology of Animals & Plants - Origins & History of Life on Earth



4. Track the events in the creation account of Genesis and it’s amazing how closely the events conform to the current view of modern science. An explosion- the universe – oceans/land - plants- …And next, in verse 20, we find: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Kind of unusual…since the author of Genesis, and, if we are to believe that the first one to speak those words, Moses, didn’t really live in a habitat that one might call ‘sea side.’


Would have been understandable if this space in the Bible had, instead, have focused on the numbers of land mammals, birds, or insects found in ancient Israel, wouldn’t it? But, instead, marine organisms are specifically named: ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life,…’


Wouldn’t it be interesting if science find lots and lots of marine organisms extant at this point? Imagine if Genesis actually parallels the history of life on earth as expounded by science. Be a heck of a coincidence.

a. A truly important development took place some 521 million years ago, in the geological period known as the Cambrian. “The most abundant and diverse animals of Cambrian time were the trilobites. Trilobites had long antennae, compound eyes, many jointed legs, and a hard exoskeleton like many of their modern arthropod relatives, such as lobsters, crabs, and insects. The Cambrian is sometimes called the "Age of Trilobites"…” Redirect


b. No earlier fossils were found during Darwin’s lifetime: “If the theory [evolution] be true it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited ... the world swarmed with living creatures. [Yet] to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these earliest periods. . . I can give no satisfactory answer. The case at present must remain inexplicable.” http://www.paleosoc.org/Oldest_Fossil.pdf

....life at this stage, about 500 million years ago, was entirely marine.

How could the Genesis writer have gotten this right?

That writer…he’s landlocked, knows little of diversity….what are the odds that ‘chance’ is the answer?


What are the odds?



5. The sequence of events from the creation of the universe, to the present, begin with great explosion that produces the universe, including the earth. The earth cools enough for oceans to form. The first life is plant life, able to photosynthesize, and add oxygen to the atmosphere. All sorts of simple non-plants fill the seas, most wormlike, with soft bodies. Along come the trilobites, hugely advanced, with hard bodies…and most amazingly, with true eyes! This makes them the primary predators….but, imposes enormous evolutionary pressure on the other organisms. The result is the Cambrian explosion, lots of small organisms with defensive armor and hard exoskeletons, some 521 million years ago. So says modern science.


a. “…Genesis shows remarkable accuracy when compared to the scientific story of life’s evolutionary journey. Here, the Genesis writer envisioned great creatures evolving from those tiny Cambrian forms, eventually making their way out of the sea….Genesis seems to have picked out all the events of the highest order of importance, and put them in the right order….I don’t know the odds against such a parallel- against making a successful guess at the scientific orthodoxy of three thousand year into the future from a knowledge base of nothing- but they must be extraordinarily long.” Parker, Op. Cit., p.163-164.


b. An interesting sidelight is the ‘evolution of the Bible’ itself. Christians have incorporated a great deal of science’s process. Early in the 20th century, the Scofield Reference Bible was published. This was a new version of the King James Bible with which added a note to Genesis, suggesting what is called the “gap theory.’ It allows that millions of years could have passed between God’s creation of the heavens and the earth, thereby freeing Genesis from the literal six-day process. “What it left was a series- the same series- of timeless events; and it is these that match the scientific account of life’s history.” Parker, “The Genesis Enigma,” p. 160.


6. Unavoidable is the recognition that, once the restrictions due to the ‘six-day’ view are removed, the order of events established by modern science conform to the sequence in the first chapter of Genesis, written millennia earlier: light from an explosion (the Big Bang), universe/earth formed, the seas from the cooling earth, plants as the first life forms; abundant sea life (the Cambrian explosion), the (evolution) of the flora and fauna we see today. Neat, eh?

Lucky guess by the author of the creation account of Genesis?


7. If it is not evidence for the God, then the author of Genesis 1, or Moses, perhaps, must have understood that the universe formed first, then the seas appeared on earth, and that life forms were photosynthetic. Following that, he had to have realized that an eye evolved in an early animal in the geological past, which triggered the evolution of all the major groups of animals that exist today. Still further, he must have felt that all of this occurred in the seas, before animals moved onto land, and only when they did move out of the water did mammals and birds evolve.
See Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"



The Old Testament was written, although not compiled, almost three millennia ago. It is extraordinary that the writer of the creation account in Genesis, chapter one, got it right in his exposition of the series of events: his sequence turns out to be scientifically accurate in terms of contemporary knowledge.


Wow! What an incredibly lucky guess! What a considerable stroke of good fortune!


The alternative explanation is divine intervention.

Good God, PC is in her pulpit with the same ding-a-ling message.

The question was concerning how the mathematical constructs we use actually work, and why the work. It has zero to do with politics or religion. For those of impaired mentality, I guess any conversation has something to do with dingbat politics, and really stupid religion. For the sane, there are many questions outside of the religious arena, or that of politics.

Let's cut right to the chase:

Try as you might, you were unable to find a single error in two brilliant expositions, posts #s 17 and 20....

Being an incipient communist and government school indoctrinee, you'd love to have been able to dispute those two gems.....

....but, alas, you couldn't.
Spelling the end of your worldview, they must make you feel like a specimen butterfly watching as the mounting pin descends.



Bet you're grinding your teeth right now, wishing you could produce posts like those.


True?

 

[cnelsen]

Try not to get too technical, but can anyone explain this in common English?
I went home and thought about it last night, but for the life of me, I can't understand why if it applies to division, it doesn't apply to the rest. What is different about division that doesn't allow that?

We can do it by example, how about this, cut up a bread to infinitely thin slices. Then you will need to take away infinitely many slices to consume your original loaf of bread so the result of your division is negative infinity.

Now take many infinitely thin slices to make up your original loaf of bread. You wil need all the infinitely many slices to reconstruct your loaf of bread so your result is positive infinity.

But what if your slices are not infinitely thin but zero thin. Since 0+0=0, not even infinitely many slices will give you back your bread. This is why the division by zero is a special case, breaks every number even infinity itself.

So it is axiomatically defined as error. It's effect is to cause a discontinuity in everything it touches, a singularity if you like. The division by zero is frequently used in mathematics in many calculations for example the estimation of system stability in the general sense, where the locations of such divisions are called the poles of the system.

Dividing by zero? It's common to multiply two sides of an equation by zero, but divide? Can't think of when that would be legitimate.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the OP Old Lady posted a logical question concerning our mathematical constructs. It was answered by several people with pretty good analytical posts. Yours, PC, was not among them.

There are many questions in our understanding of mathematics that seem to have no answers, like why some fundamental values, such as Pi, have no repeating patterns in their value, and go one forever. There may be a mathematician out there that can answer that, and it may be that the majority of us will never understand his answer. But these are good questions to consider, in their scientific context. Inserting religion of politics into the discussion is just a diversion and adds nothing.