I've seen a lot of creation myths over the years, and the Genesis account is remarkable in how free it is from personifications or explaining how things came about through social circumstance. I think that is one reason it holds up as well as it does.

For instance in the nearly related Babylonian myths, people were an afterthought and a nuisance. Instead of waters representing dragons, it was dragons representing waters. Genesis has its own MCU llike moments, but far less than any other creation myth that I know of.

He's more of a mathematician theoretician than a scientist in my book.

He's done some brilliant mathematical hacks to come up with some very interesting theories. For instance, creating a boundary layer and applying different mathematical theories on both sides to come up with the idea of Hawking Radiation from black holes. And that has met with some observations as well ... https://phys.org/news/2021-02-...

But like the hack itself, the observable evidence requires us to squint our eyes a bit to see past all the analogies required.

I've actually been here for a quarter of a century. It's amazing it is still around. I was using Linux before it was 1.0, and even had a patch accepted to the kernel but not the mainstream kernel. I haven't played a major part in the OSS movement, but I've been fairly involved.

To understand what I'm up to in this series you need to read my previous journal entries. The tldr; is that in an unexpected way Genesis has the drama, snappy pacing, and language that would work very well with 5 year olds learning science.

Genesis is such a battle ground. I anticipate as much pushback from the creationists as the science enthusiasts because I don't play by their rules of ex-post-nihlo or timelines either.

Its a lot like going back to a childhood playground and talking with the old neighborhood friends, nothing serious just interesting.

I don't think the Firehose is that particular. You just must have seen it at the right time. I don't remember interacting with you before either. But it is nice to meet you either way.

Since this is a journal, consider it a friendly place and my own personal journey instead of a new direction for /.

Its kind of like going back to a childhood playground and seeing all the old neighborhood friends for me.

Wait, stop ... this made it to the front page?

I like your signature.

No it did not come from a Bible study curriculum.

As far as my best understanding of physics, our mathematical models start applying in degrees of verifiability from complete conjecture to solid Standard Model only after the big bang.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing we know about the state of of the universe at the BB was from Hawking, who showed it started from a singularity, who showed it was the same mathematically an undefinable state that Einstein defined a singularity as.

I agree, Genesis makes a very explicit distinction between the deep and water. I'm admittedly taking figurative license that an ocean and a depth can often describe the same thing.

In the next part I go further in the concept of water being an allusion for chaos when i talk about the separation of the waters from the waters. At that point Genesis tries (in my opinion) to move from an allusion of cosmic chaos as "waters" and the waters the allusion was built on, the waters we actually experience.

I'm trying to find a way to introduce this with just the translation, and might find a way that preserves the Genesis distinction. I would even prefer it if I could.

Gen 1:1 is coming next. That is where the translation wresting begins ;)

Do they want DRM, though, or do they just want their prolefeed and are apathetic and/or ignorant about the DRM applied to it?

Belay that, I do know. Some memories are quicker than others.

If you had said Bits and Chips, or maybe BoredAtWork I think I would have understood. I'm afraid I don't understand Duckpins...