Chapter: Comics
Luke Surl Comics
The latest from LukeSurl.com
Content on 
Luke Surl Comics which is written and drawn by Luke Surl is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
For commercial use, see http://www.lukesurl.com/about.
Content created with other artists has all rights reserved.
Luke Surl Comics which is written and drawn by Luke Surl is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
For commercial use, see http://www.lukesurl.com/about.
Content created with other artists has all rights reserved.
Just realized that it spells ‘wtf’
All kidding aside, it’s actually not a new theory. Gerald Schroeder (physicist) noted that through the theory of relativity you can easily “set” the age of the universe to be six days (or any other amount) you want. Since the universal expansion following the big bang creates a large time dilation effect, depending when and where you start the clock you’ll come out with different numbers for the age of the universe.
The 13 billion number is relative to how time passes on earth. Turns out if you start the clock at the moment the universe cooled to the point at which photons could roam freely (when there was first light, the biblical definition of the beginning of the universe), it comes out to almost exactly 6 days.
Also, the times for when things first showed up during those six days match nicely with cosmology and evolution, if you interpret the events according to traditional biblical commentary.
A brief writeup about it is here: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html, and it’s detailed more fully (with the math involved) in his book, available here: http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132
hahaha
“Also, the times for when things first showed up during those six days match nicely with cosmology and evolution, if you interpret the events according to traditional biblical commentary.”
Complete rubbish. Either you have not read the Biblical account(-s) of creation, or you are clueless about scientific understanding of the history of the Universe and the evolution of life. Biblical account is obvious nonsense - water existing before Earth, Earth existing before light (WTF!?), plants and trees existing before light (who was the moron to come up with that!?), light existing before stars (another sign that the author was very bright), human beings created before other animals, animals created before fish etc.
I just wonder, what kind or mental acrobatics one needs to make, to come up or believe in such obvious BS, knowing how obviously flawed the Biblical account of creation is.
In the beginning, there was nothing, then BANG! there was light! and matter! And there was earth and the sun and the moon! So far checks out, seeing as watches didn’t exist and it’s silly to think God must be on human earth modern time…. I figure the 6 days thing is not such a big deal.
Part 2: Earth was big rock, then went through a phase of being all water,then the land and water separated to make continents and oceans. and the atmosphere was created (water above, water below, seporating) ta-da! Oh, then there was vegetation, which lead to… [day three seems like a repeat of day one… maybe the sky and atmosphere cleared up so the little plants could see the stars better? I’m skipping]
Part 4: the oceans filled with life, then the life expanded across land and sky,
Part 5: and the animals multiplied
Part 6: then at long last, man was made. Last.
I don’t get skeptic’s account:
“Biblical account is obvious nonsense – water existing before Earth, Earth existing before light (WTF!?), plants and trees existing before light (who was the moron to come up with that!?), light existing before stars (another sign that the author was very bright), human beings created before other animals, animals created before fish etc.”
Because to me, with my New International Version sitting in front of me, it looks like things progressed in a pretty biological and geological order… humans last, fish after plants, land animals after fish, water and continents before any of that and mater and light being number one.
As far as the actual comic goes, I like that Charles Darwin created the universe 🙂
Are you suggesting the first time the Earth was dry, didn’t count? Because the Bible doesn’t say the Earth was created dry then made wet then made both.
Also, I don’t remember when it placed the stars. Were the stars before the Earth? Because the Earth contains many star-created atoms - carbon etc.
Mr. Skeptic, I understand your point of view and I share it in some regards, but please do keep in mind that some people devote heart and soul to this story and believe it for whatever reason they want, and those people could be very hurt by all of this rudeness.
By the way, some would take your comment as proof that anyone who doesn’t share there religion is rude and they would pass it off as just you being insulting. That might even heighten their faith.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to accomplish with that comment, but in the process of achieving it, please, be nice.
No. Anyone who generalizes an entire group of people based on a few paragraphs from one individual is not worth talking to or having their thoughts and feelings considered.
Also, requesting a refrain from rudeness toward the faithful of a religion whose holy book advocates slavery, rape, and murder is absurd and offensive in itself.
I don’t agree with all of what skeptic said, but at least she or he hasn’t stoned anyone, called them an abomination to be shunned and persecuted, or advocated for such abhorrences as xenophobia and the subjugation of women. That list isn’t just ancient history, either. Such things are still practiced by the three major Abrahamic religions.
SIX days? That even beats Dr. Furter….
anonymous …
You’re arguing from authority. Just because one physicist says that it could have happened that way doesn’t mean that it did. Dr. Schroeder needs to publish his hypothesis, along with the experimental design, actual data, and analysis to the scientific community, where it can be reviewed, critiqued, and duplicated. At that point, we might have something to talk about.
Of course, he won’t do that, because he can’t. He is still postulating a supernatural origin for natural phenomena, which puts it outside the realm of science. At best, it’s philosophy. At worst, it’s yet another salvo in an ongoing culture war that has religion sticking its dirty little fingers into places where they don’t belong. I’m not a fan of Gould’s argument of NOMA, but I do believe that theologians ought not comment on science unless they can do so as scientists speaking from a scientific position.
Dr. Schroeder, whatever his qualifications and abilities as a scientist, argues as a theologan about theological terms. He is not speaking as a scientist. Or at least, he ought not to be (many creationists tout scientific credentials as a justification for their religious beliefs, which is incredibly dishonest and disrespectful to the scientific community). The credulous if not cretinous creationists ought to at least have the decency to do the same.
“Also, the times for when things first showed up during those six days match nicely with cosmology and evolution, if you interpret the events according to traditional biblical commentary.”
PUH-leeeeeez!
I’m always suspicious of the phrase “If you intepret it this way” since it’s basically another way of saying “This is my opinion and opinions can’t be wrong”.
Skeptic. While I agree with you on anon’s opinion. Is it really that much of a stretch to say that it was an allegory? Sure its not exactly correct but if you were to tell a primative 3,000 or so years ago how the world got started do you think they’d beleive it? No of course not they’d burn your sorcerer ass. I’d like to propose that a majority of genisis is an allegory having a very loose basis on scientific fact meant to show humans how amazing a feat it is to creat the world they stood on. Not only is the bible supposed to be a subject of metaphysics not physics, its certianly abhorent to try and fuse science and religion together. They are both beautiful things so stop trying taint them. I mean heck every time I hear all the implications for my existence it makes me awestruck. I mean damn thats alot of science
That’s a nice thought, and indeed a lot of trouble in the world is caused by some people interpreting metaphor as fact and others interpreting it as falsehood meant to be fact. That might be what’s going on here.
Hey could everybody calm down for a second, and take a moment to check and see how anti-Christian some of these comments seem? I am not Christian, and often find Christians rather annoying, and saying that so and so happened so and so way is alright, because to each his own belief, but passing off others’ comments as stupid religious b**ls**t because they seem to favor that perspective is just rude. Please stop insulting people.
Evolution had to start with the first evidence of life and work it’s way from there.
Dr. Carl Sagan estimated that the mathematical probability of the simplest form of life emerging from non-living matter has the odds of one chance in ten to the two billionth power.
Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability, says: The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed with 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how may conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place. So mathematically speaking, live could not have started from non-life and we are not here. Man, am I surprised !!!!!