Interesting correlations between science and Torah

Originally posted by dontreally
Amazingly, it turns out there are about 100 stars in the pleiades constellation..

No, there are about 500 stars in the star cluster known as "Pleiades".

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by dontreally
Amazingly, it turns out there are about 100 stars in the pleiades constellation..

No, there are about 500 stars in the star cluster known as "Pleiades".

Than why are there so many articles that say there are 100?

For instance, this NASA website says there are 100.
The Pleiades is a loose cluster of approximately 100 stars with an average age estimated at 78 million years

If youre going to counter my claim, atleast back it up with a source.

Originally posted by dontreally
Than why are there so many articles that say there are 100?

They are probably outdated, they are still cataloguing all the stars.

If youre going to counter my claim, atleast back it up with a source.

Sure.

Modern observing methods have revealed that at least about 500 mostly faint stars belong to the Pleiades star cluster, spread over a 2 degree (four times the diameter of the Moon) field. Their density is pretty low, compared to other open clusters. This is one reason why the life expectation of the Pleiades cluster is also pretty low (see below).

Source

A nearby, fairly loose open cluster of about 500 stars in the constellation Taurus.

Source

The cluster itself is a group of many hundreds of stars about 400 light years away in the direction of the northern constellation of Taurus.

Source

The cluster contains over 1000 statistically members, excluding unresolved binary stars.

Source

It looks like the cataloguing of all those stars is still an ongoing work.

reply to post by FlyInTheOintment


Well I definately agree with you that there are similarities in trusting religious or academic dogmas. Anyone is a believer, who takes others word or theories as granted, no matter if these theories are of religion or science (or whatever). I also agree that we all have freedom to believe what we will. It sometimes kinda renders the discussions (or should I say debates) useless on the Internet forums, unless the sole point of the exchance is exchange itself, not persuation or convertion. If the last ones are motives of our exchange, we are actually guilty in attempt of reducing freedom.

The key word is empirical experience and this is where I aim at. However, it is pretty impossible for me to go digging up all the ancient cultures and dating their existence in a empirical manner. Therefore I have to presume that current dates we are not far off the actual - or they might, how should I know? The only things I can have certain knowledge about are things I've personally experienced and even then there is danger of subjectivity.

Besides, on personal level, our origins doesn't really matter to me I wouldn't be shocked to find out that we came from stars (which we infact might've done) or that aliens have visited us before. However, as for now, I hold this possibility somewhat slim in the light of evidence.. But it is unimportant.

By the way, I found this Online Sumerian Text Corpus and made few quick attempts to find reference to the aliens, but couldn't find very definative one. Maybe you could point out the relevant parts for me? That would be close to genuine exchange.



-v

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by dontreally
Than why are there so many articles that say there are 100?

They are probably outdated, they are still cataloguing all the stars.

Okay, so it kinda proves that Torah, while contained advanced knowledge on it's time, is not quite accurate.

Probably because those Chaldean Magus didn't have very effecient telescopes

Yet they propably had some kind of scopes, not just as efficient as we have today.

-v

reply to post by v01i0

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Somewhat reckless reply in my opinion.

No, it was simply brief. You don't really need to give more than a reply of 'you're wrong' to the sort of nonsense about Bronze Age mythology having any sort of scientific weight.

Do you think that if Bible (or Torah in this particular case) says that tree is a tree, it is therefore somehow false claim?

That is not a scientific claim, that is a linguistic claim. I'll agree with the label that is is a tree. There's nothing scientific about it. Now, what the word 'tree' implies is a point of disagreement. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is there given a proper description of how trees grow, how they nourish themselves, etc.

Granted, the Hebrews started off as Nomads, so agriculture wasn't their initial strong suit. They were really better at genocide and conquest.

Oh, and the Bible actually gets some labels wrong. Like calling a bat a bird. They thought: "It flies, therefore it belongs to the group of other things that fly"

Please, show me a scientifically correct claim in the Bible, along with a proper justification for why it is scientifically correct.

reply to post by v01i0


No, they just made a guess of a number. That's not advanced knowledge, it's guess work. There isn't a presentation of evidence to show the claim is valid. There isn't anything that says "If you look at this place with this tool you'll see this which shows this"

It's just a random guess and that random guess happened to be closer.

I find a few things the ancients seemed to know a bit perplexing.

Think about this. Ancient Greek literature refers to the "Two steeds of Mars," and again in the early 1700's in Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels.

But it was only in 1877 that the two moons of Mars were discovered by telescope.

Odd.

reply to post by ArMaP


Are any of those websites more credible than the NASA website?

There appears to be an enormous gap between 500, as suggested by your sources, and 100.

Maybe there are 100 major stars, with an additional 400 lesser ones.

In anycase, the NASA article was last updated this year. So, i think that is by far the most credible one.

Also keep in mind that the farther one can look beyond an area, the more distant items can also be detected.

The significant difference is between a half-dozen and a hundred.

Especially noted in advance over millennia.

Originally posted by dontreally
Are any of those websites more credible than the NASA website?

I don't know if they are more credible than that specific NASA website, but I guess that Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, an astronomer (David Darling), the Australian Astronomical Observatory and the National Research Institute of Astronomy & Geophysics (Egypt) are at least as credible as NASA.

There appears to be an enormous gap between 500, as suggested by your sources, and 100.

Some say more than 1000, so the difference is even bigger than that.

Maybe there are 100 major stars, with an additional 400 lesser ones.

I think that's the situation, and one of the reasons for such a big difference is that there are several binary stars, so while they look at first like one star they are really two.

In anycase, the NASA article was last updated this year. So, i think that is by far the most credible one.

It was not, you can see on this link that the article is exactly the same as it was on February 1998.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Obviously it wasn't a random guess. It is pretty hard to count 100 stars with naked eye from Pleiades. To me more plausible explanation is that Jewish scribes got this information from Persian Magis or who practiced astronomy.

I'm not gonna start browsing bible to find you a scientifically exact claim. I do not take Bible or any other religious text as a literal truth, but rather as a symbolic representation of some more or less accurate psychological curioisities.

Besides what would be scientifically correct claim in a book that is centuries old? Even it may contain some scientifically correct information of those times, they are hardly accurate nowadays. After couple thousand years, many of today's scientific facts and dogmas may be inaccurate or even false.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by v01i0
Do you think that if Bible (or Torah in this particular case) says that tree is a tree, it is therefore somehow false claim?

That is not a scientific claim, that is a linguistic claim. I'll agree with the label that is is a tree. There's nothing scientific about it.

Do you take everything so literally? No wonder why you have so hard time with religious texts, you seem to have no idea about their symbolic value. I was referring to a "tree" just as an example.

Besides isn't linguistic scientifical? Linguistics is just a branch in a "tree" called science. As well is biology, where trees are quite common.

-v

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Looking at your signature, you appear to be a militant atheist. I therefore won't waste time discussing anything with you, as our viewpoints differ too much. I just want to add another point of view against your own, to give the unbiased reader something to think about.

I'm not a creationist, but I find value in the ancient texts as a means by which to understand the human psyche, much in the same way that the other member (VoiO from memory) mentioned above. I've had religious experiences (which are ongoing) and I believe in God (supreme - loving - spiritual force responsible for the Universe's existence).

I don't totally ascribe to ancient astronaut theories, but find some amazing topics of intrigue amongst Sitchin's work. I believe the ziggurats were advanced in comparison to our own architecture, if you consider the purpose for which they were constructed. They certainly look space-age (not neolithic/ bronze age!)



I'm just starting to look into the old 'fire and ice' mythologies, wherein humanity is said to have evolved to high technological capability before being destroyed in cataclysm, again and again, throughout millions of years of history. I love reading ancient Hindu legend, and particularly about the feats of Yogis (masters of the esoteric arts involving Prana/ life force control) - their actions are highly reminiscent of actions ascribed to Jesus.

There's so much mysterious, out-of-place, paranormal/ magical and downright 'paradigm-shattering' stuff out there, that it just becomes comfortable to take someone else's word for it, and to jump on the bandwagon of the aggressive debunk-machine.

Research everything for yourself, and don't ascribe too much value to being accepted by others.

Better a poor man with knowledge, than a foolish King.

reply to post by dontreally


An update.

I sent an e-mail to the scientist that wrote that answer on that NASA page, and he told me that:

- He is not a real expert on open clusters or stellar populations
- In 1989 numbers of 300-400 were quoted and his earlier answer was a bit low
- Now the number is more than 1000, and this is due to sensitive searches for low mass stars using the 2mass survey and others
- The true number of stars is likely to be larger than 1000, but that is just speculation

PS: I didn't post his direct answer because I didn't ask permission for it.