In the beginning...

[Ted Evans]

But that doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Any opinion that the universe to be 10,000 years old can be dismissed as invalid.

Nor did I say they were, nor did I say anything about how old the universe is, did I? Why do folks insist on any subject in creation other than the OP, is it because they know they cannot answer the questions with empirical evidence so they feel the need to deflect to another subject?

I would never try to convince anyone that is not open to Christian scriptures about the universe because I absolutely believe that if God Himself stood before them and performed supernatural miracles, they would still not accept anything He may say until science could prove it.

 

[Polymath257]

Number 1 – the very first line, “in the beginning”, IOW before the BB, before there was anything. See #7).

Which assumes that there *was* a 'before anything'. In particular, since time is part of 'anything', you are asking if there is a time before time. That is clearly nonsense.

Number 2 – Questions 1) - 5), to see how honest the answers would be, it has nothing to do with my understanding. I have previously read most everything anyone, including you, has submitted in this thread. No, I am not, nor do I claim to be knowledgeable of physics or cosmology but I can understand simple answers to simple questions which were what I asked, if, you read them as they were asked, which obviously, you did not. See #7).

Number 3 – For 5), the only valid answer to the question were the one(s) that honestly answered, "not known." See #7 and the phrase preceding the questions, let me know if you need further instructions.

Seems to be the characteristic of those that cannot provide a response as was requested in #7), they try diversion, deflection and when that does not work, then it is ridicule and personal attacks, anything to get the focus off the fact they cannot answer questions as they were asked and your comments in the thread has proven that assertion true.

No, they have honestly told you that we have no information about any times before about the first millisecond after the current expansion started. Since you wanted concepts supported by verifiable empirical evidence, that is the time, currently, where this discussion has to stop.

Now, that doesn't mean there aren't theories that have a lot of backing that deal with prior times. it means they have not been extensively tested and verified empirically.

So, you are asking for answers that we do not yet have. There is no reason to think those answers are beyond our capabilities as we gain more ability to probe, but currently we cannot do so.

 

[Ted Evans]

Once again, we do not know the specifics about 'in the beginning'

Thank you, I appreciate an honest answer. My point being that science cannot prove where, how or when the components needed for creation came into existence, they only have speculation, conjecture. The first five question in the OP clearly stated, "in the beginning" and only answers addressed to that specific is relative.

 

[Ted Evans]

There was no 'time' where there was 'nothing'. Any 'time' where there was 'time', there was also 'matter', 'space' and 'energy'.

See #7) in the OP.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just some more deflection or, you cannot comprehend what you read, or, if you even read the OP. Can you quote me asking anyone to help me understand? I do not think you can.

I see. Even though you admit you don't know much about cosmology and the nature of your questions indicate that you don't know much about science in general, your questions do not stem from an attempt to learn anything.

That doesn't reflect on you very well, does it?

Number 2 – Questions 1) - 5), to see how honest the answers would be, it has nothing to do with my understanding.

Obviously not, since you don't have much of an understanding nor are you at all interested in gaining any.

No, I am not, nor do I claim to be knowledgeable of physics or cosmology

That much is extremely obvious to everyone in this thread.

but I can understand simple answers to simple questions

Hilarious. "I want answers to all my questions about astrophysics and the origin of the universe......and those answers must be simple!!"

Seems to be the characteristic of those that cannot provide a response as was requested in #7), they try diversion, deflection and when that does not work, then it is ridicule and personal attacks, anything to get the focus off the fact they cannot answer questions as they were asked and your comments in the thread has proven that assertion true.

See, here's how this usually goes. Someone like you (usually a Christian) comes into this sub-board and starts spouting off a bunch of really, really stupid creationist talking points and arguments, and while doing so demonstrates that they don't know the first thing about the subject. A few people will try and help by taking the time to explain the subject to you, but as you noted above, you have no interest in learning anything. So now what?

All that's left to do is point out the obvious.....your questions are stupid and indicative of your fundamental ignorance of basic science. And now you're all "Personal attack!! Ridicule!! Personal attack!! Deflection!!!" But what you're missing is that you've left us with no other choice.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you, I appreciate an honest answer. My point being that science cannot prove where, how or when the components needed for creation came into existence, they only have speculation, conjecture. The first five question in the OP clearly stated, "in the beginning" and only answers addressed to that specific is relative.

I still don't get your point with all this. Maybe you can explain.

The origin of the universe remains a scientific mystery, therefore ___________________?

 

[Ted Evans]

You know, whenever I see a thread like this only a day old, and it's got 9 pages I just give up on reading or even replying. No way am I gonna read 9 pages. And my post gets buried anyway.

That said... I do wanna point out a couple things for the heck of it.



1: matter and energy are convertible so no. It would just change energy to matter. That's conversion.

2: Things would be existing. I'm not sure how any of that can exist without space though. If there is time there is space. Physically they *cant* be separated.

3. If there is matter there is energy. It's not possible to have one without the other. ASnd even if it was the matter would almost instantly give off some form of energy through the weak nuclear force or radiation or whatever.

4. Again space and time are linked. if theres space theres time although time might appear to not be there if nothing moves and everything is at absolute zero.

5. No one knows. We can't see before or the exact split moment of the big bang so all the hypotheses about how are based on different mathematical models.

6: Age can be determined, for example the current model that gives the age was proven when it correctly predicted the distribution of elements in the known universe before it was even possible to figure that out.

6b: I've never seen a convincing reason why the Universe is infinite. The observable universe is surely finite though. There is no actual proof that it's infinite but some mathematical models say it is close enough with "bubbles" of which our universe is one of countless ones. But again thats never had any evidence for it beyond mathematical models consistent with what we already know. So they could be right or wrong. Nobody really knows.

7. Except where I noted no one really knows or they are based on mathematical models, it's been proven with physical evidence. There are some books on the subjects I could recommend if you see my post and care to know more.

Also when you read those types of sources note that they generally can mean something proven although sometimes they use the layman's definition. It just depends on how technical they are being.

Also some theories like "the theory of everything" which is the nickname because "Unified Field Theory of Quantum mechanics and General Relativity" sounds silly.... those are more of pursuits for a theory that would be that. In that sense they find the theory when they prove a hypothesis. Sometimes people will refer to something like M-Theory in which its used in the layman's sense.

So ya, context can be important. Theories are not usually guesses except in the layman's sense of the word.

I appreciate your comments, especially 6b. and your comment about "time" is provocative, perhaps I will start a thread on that subject or perhaps you will, if you are interested.

 

[Ted Evans]

What do you mean by the term 'evolve' in this context?

The one in .MW...

Evolve - "to produce by natural evolutionary processes c : DEVELOP, WORK OUT"

Evolution - "1 : one of a set of prescribed movements 2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off "

1) why can those defintions not apply to cosmology?

No, the universe did not change by mutation and natural selection. It is not a biological species that changes over time. Since that is the scientific meaning of the word 'evolve', the universe did not evolve.

So, are you saying that this is not accurate?

[Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang

Read more: Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang - Theory, Models, Astronomer, and Time - JRank Articles Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang]

When speaking of the BB, can the aftermath of that not be described as "evolving".

Has the universe changed since it started? Yes. Primarily, it has cooled off, which has allowed galaxies and stars to form, etc. Now, we can go into the various stages of these changes and why cooling lead to such changes at those times, if you want.

Thanks, but what I was looking for was if those that ridicule Creationists would give honest answers about the components needed for the creation of the universe, "in the beginning"? Where, what and how did they come into existence and be answered with empirical evidence.

 

[Nous]

Can any cosmology evolutionist answer these questions for me?


In the beginning...

1) If there is space, energy and time but no matter, can anything be created?

2) If there is energy, time and matter but no space, where would anything created be placed?

3) If there is time, matter and space but no energy, how could anything be created?

4) If there is matter, space and energy but no time, when could anything be created?

5) Where did space, energy, time and matter come from?

6) Is the universe finite or infinite and if, it is infinite, can the age be determined?

7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.

Obviously, Ted, you ask good questions here, getting dozens of replies in just a few hours. I think the majority of my OPs fail to elicit any response at all.

5) Where did space, energy, time and matter come from?

I asked the question several times regarding the origin of the universe's energy--without any coherent response, as far as I recall. We know that energy was not created within the closed system of the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you, I appreciate an honest answer. My point being that science cannot prove where, how or when the components needed for creation came into existence, they only have speculation, conjecture. The first five question in the OP clearly stated, "in the beginning" and only answers addressed to that specific is relative.

Do you assume this is a permanent state of affairs? That science will *never* be able to resolve these issues?

 

[Polymath257]

So, are you saying that this is not accurate?

[Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang

Read more: Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang - Theory, Models, Astronomer, and Time - JRank Articles Cosmology - Evolution Of Cosmological Thought, The Expanding Universe, The Big Bang, Implications Of The Big Bang]

When speaking of the BB, can the aftermath of that not be described as "evolving".

Your article describes how our understanding of the universe has changed, the evolution of the *study* of cosmology. That is very different than cosmological evolution.

The aftermath of the BB can only be described as evolution in a very generic and vague sense. If you want to be precise, the answer is no.

Thanks, but what I was looking for was if those that ridicule Creationists would give honest answers about the components needed for the creation of the universe, "in the beginning"? Where, what and how did they come into existence and be answered with empirical evidence.

And we have no such empirical evidence at this time. We have many hypotheses that are completely consistent with observations, but none have been tested to the point that the others are excluded.

 

[Jose Fly]

The aftermath of the BB can only be described as evolution in a very generic and vague sense.

In about the same sense that my golf game has "evolved".

 

[Polymath257]

In about the same sense that my golf game has "evolved".

Precisely. Somehow, the idea that things change over time has become anathema to certain religious adherents.

 

[Jose Fly]

Precisely. Somehow, the idea that things change over time has become anathema to certain religious adherents.

As @Sunstone noted, there's quite a bit of simplistic thinking going on in creationist circles, and consistent with that is their rejection of anything that can be described with the word "evolved". IOW, it's just the word "evolve" that gives them fits. They really are that simplistic.

 

[Polymath257]

As @Sunstone noted, there's quite a bit of simplistic thinking going on in creationist circles, and consistent with that is their rejection of anything that can be described with the word "evolved". IOW, it's just the word "evolve" that gives them fits. They really are that simplistic.

The other aspect is seeing *all* of science as being part of an 'evolutionist' mindset. So, any conclusion they decide not to like is passed off as biased by that mindset.

 

[Jose Fly]

The other aspect is seeing *all* of science as being part of an 'evolutionist' mindset. So, any conclusion they decide not to like is passed off as biased by that mindset.

And as the data shows in the thread I started today, their numbers are decreasing even within their own faith. IMO, I don't think it'll be very long before creationism has about the same status as flat-earthism.

 

[Valjean]

I recommend AIG...anyone can write a book but the question is can they provide verifiable evidence that substantiates their assertions?

Answers in Genesis is a cleverly written, religious propaganda site. It promotes magical creation by an invisible, purposive personage by false dichotomy. It attacks or re-interprets well supported scientific facts. It asserts falsehoods and half truths. It begins with a conclusion and works backward, cherry picking, misrepresenting and generally creating issues where none exists. It promotes the myth of a controversy in the scientific community. Most significantly they provide no "verifiable evidence that substantiates their assertions." Their doctrine is not falsifiable, is not arrived at by observation and experimentation, it is not predictive. they do not publish in scientific journals. Legitimate science ignores AiG.
In short, it is-faith based, scientific laughing stock whose conclusions are based on casting doubt on any alternative facts.

Science "provides verifiable evidence that substantiates their assertions." Creationism/ID/creation"science" does not.

Keeping in mind, "in the beginning", can you explain how anything can be created without matter? Something that can be duplicated, observed being done, not a hypothesis or theory?

I can't but there are physicists who can. We can observe this happening but so far cannot duplicate it.

Can this be demonstrated, has it been done in a lab, can you provide some examples? Or, is it a mathematical formula that suggests that it can be done?

It's both. The formula, E=MC^2, was published in 1905, and has since been demonstrated and become a mainstay of the modern world. Some of the electricity running that computer in front of you was probably generated by application of this matter-energy equivalence.

Are you saying that if there is matter, energy and time, there has to be space also or have I misunderstood? My contention is that all four of these components are required, in the beginning, before there can be a universe. Is that an incorrect assumption?

But these are not four components. These are only two. Space and time, and matter and energy, are essentially the same things, looked at from different angles, so to speak. One is an essential aspect of the other.
This is physics 101.

 

[Polymath257]

And as the data shows in the thread I started today, their numbers are decreasing even within their own faith. IMO, I don't think it'll be very long before creationism has about the same status as flat-earthism.

'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

 

[metis]

Somehow, the idea that things change over time has become anathema to certain religious adherents.

Because this is what they've been brainwashed to believe by pastors with the motive to keep them in their church by portraying "liberal" churches as being anti-Bible. IOW, they play the "we"/"they" card, with the "we" being the good guys in the white hats who take the "Word of God" literally, and the "they" being the bad guys with the black hats who don't accept the literalistic agenda.

I grew up in one of those churches, and trust me, this is what I was told on a regular basis.

 

[Polymath257]

Because this is what they've been brainwashed to believe by pastors with the motive to keep them in their church by portraying "liberal" churches as being anti-Bible. IOW, they play the "we"/"they" card, with the "we" being the good guys in the white hats who take the "Word of God" literally, and the "they" being the bad guys with the black hats who don't accept the literalistic agenda.

I grew up in one of those churches, and trust me, this is what I was told on a regular basis.

As was I, and so also my wife. It leaves a scar.