In the beginning...

[Valjean]

Now, we are getting to the crux of the issue. Science cannot or has not, proven where these components, which are required for creation, came from. They speculate, believe, think, could be but they cannot answer the question with anything more than hypothesis and/or theories. However, creationists cannot provide any “scientific” evidence for our beliefs either but are ridiculed by many “evolutionists” because of our beliefs. Why can both sides not just admit that what was, in the beginning, is our belief?

The "sides" are not equivalent. Science doesn't prove things, it just gathers and tests evidence, and a theory is the apex of human understanding. Most "facts" are also theories. Eg: the heliocentric or germ theory.
You are questioning the cutting edges of science, where the fact of creation is observed but the mechanisms still hypothetical. Not understanding a phenomenon does not imply magic (God) as a mechanism. This is a false dichotomy.

I have read views on both sides and as far as I know, it is not a proven fact, one way or the other.

A spherical Earth and Sun-centered solar system are not proven facts, either, but they are scientific facts. Anytime someone talks about "proof" in a non mathematical or brewing context I smell a rat, and suspect I'm dealing with someone unfamiliar with science.
In re: "both sides" -- There is no other side. There is no other fact based, tested hypothesis addressing either original genesis or evolution.

Religion generates a lot of Sturm und Drang, but there's no scientific substance to it. It's a house of cards.

"Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the Universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate."

Does that answer your question? BTW, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to each one of my questions.

I understand what cosmology is, and what evolution is, but fail to see much overlap in the two areas of study, so, alas, am still a bit confused.
Another nit-pick -- with apologies: "Evolutionist." This is not a term in general parlance. It's a derogatory slur usually seen in creationist literature. it's like "Obamacare" or "Democrat party."
It's used to irritate.

 

[Valjean]

Stop the semantics game and give some empirical scientific evidence. You're deliberately pulling a bait and switch.

Give it a rest, David. You've been given endless explanations and evidences. You ignore them all and continue asking for same.

 

[Valjean]

Why not?

Because only an idiot would give it any credence.

 

[In_Deepthought]

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.

Hi,
I think if you actual take a look at the theory of the big bang it doesn't actually say "nothing". There was energy here is the wikipedia version.

The universe began very hot, small, and dense superforce (The mix of the 4 cosmic forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). Then about 13.8 billion years ago,[ space expanded very quickly (thus the name "Big Bang"). This started the formation of atoms, which eventually led to the formation of stars and galaxies. It was Georges Lemaître who first noted (in 1927) that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point. The universe is still expanding today, but getting colder as well.

In your second,third,fourth point time did not exist either. Your fifth point is the same question answered with the Big Bang theory above.

If you are looking for clear crisp proof then you will have to wait and then maybe never will you see it. It is a theory yet to be disproved it is the best theory that fits the latest data about the universe you must always remember that science has only really had a few hundred years of time to try and understand the universe around us religion has have thousands of years to imagine how the universe was made.
Science thrives on working on a theory based on available true data and then places the data into the model if it fits the theory is proven if it doesn't fit then the theory is incorrect the big bang theory is still having data placed into the model so no one as yet can say whether it is fact or fiction either way even if its proven wrong a newer theory will be tried and tested until the answer is found this how science works it doesn't give up trying to explain things and make a story up just because it can't find the answer yet.

 

[Valjean]

Do you assume abiogenesis? Or do you have another theory about the first life form?

If you believe Earth was once sterile you must needs believe in abiogenesis. Both scientists and religious fundamentalists believe in abiogenesis.
The only difference between science and religion is that one proposes a physical mechanism and the other only an agent. Mechanism vs magic.

 

[Ted Evans]

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.

Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

What is your definition of “beginning”?

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?

No, they have honestly told you that we have no information about any times before about the first millisecond after the current expansion started.

OK, which one am I supposed to believe as honest, the one that says there is no information or ones like these two?

“There has always been something, and we are part of that something.”

“It was always there?”

Since you wanted concepts supported by verifiable empirical evidence, that is the time, currently, where this discussion has to stop.

Sorry, I did not ask for “concepts”, question 1) was a yes or no question. Question 2) asked where could a creation be located. Question 3) asked how could a creation be accomplished under certain conditions. Question 4) asked for a time under stated conditions that a creation could be accomplished. Question 5) asked where space, energy, time and matter came from.

All of these were in the context of the “beginning” as defined in a common English dictionary and 7) specifically stated, “If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.”

So with all of that, why not just answer the questions as they were asked, or, just ignore the post? Out of all the responses to the OP, how many answered the questions and how many tried to go off on how something could be done, or what could have or, completely off on a tangent?

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.

No problem with that view.

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.

I agree entirely with that comment, so, why all of the posts, with different answers, different assertions as fact and entirely different subjects from the OP, why not just honestly say as you did…answer not possible at this time? I have a theory for the answer to that question.

 

[Valjean]

Keeping in mind the OP, “In the beginning” can you provide some examples of that and how it can be accomplished “in the beginning” before there was anything? IOW, no outside involvement, all you have is energy, can you do that?

We don't even have energy. Its popping into existence ex nihilo is a fact. The mechanism is an active area of study. "Goddidit" is not an explanation, just an assertion of agency, based on no evidence. it's a special pleading and, practically, a proposal of magic.

 

[Valjean]

I agree entirely with that comment, so, why all of the posts, with different answers, different assertions as fact and entirely different subjects from the OP, why not just honestly say as you did…answer not possible at this time? I have a theory for the answer to that question.

No, you don't have a theory. You may have a sincere belief, but it is faith-based and not a conclusion based on observation and testing.

 

[Ted Evans]

Hi, I think if you actual take a look at the theory of the big bang it doesn't actually say "nothing". There was energy here is the wikipedia version.

The universe began very hot, small, and dense superforce (The mix of the 4 cosmic forces), with no stars, atoms, form, or structure (called a "singularity"). Then about 13.8 billion years ago,[ space expanded very quickly (thus the name "Big Bang"). This started the formation of atoms, which eventually led to the formation of stars and galaxies. It was Georges Lemaître who first noted (in 1927) that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point. The universe is still expanding today, but getting colder as well.

Interesting but how does that answer the question as it was asked, “in the beginning” and then see #7)?

In your second,third,fourth point time did not exist either.

Did you happen to notice the “IF” preceding the questions?

Your fifth point is the same question answered with the Big Bang theory above.

Really, the BB theory tells me where space, energy, matter and time came from, “in the beginning”? You do know the meaning of “in the beginning” do you not?

If you are looking for clear crisp proof then you will have to wait and then maybe never will you see it. It is a theory yet to be disproved it is the best theory that fits the latest data about the universe you must always remember that science has only really had a few hundred years of time to try and understand the universe around us religion has have thousands of years to imagine how the universe was made.

Science thrives on working on a theory based on available true data and then places the data into the model if it fits the theory is proven if it doesn't fit then the theory is incorrect the big bang theory is still having data placed into the model so no one as yet can say whether it is fact or fiction either way even if its proven wrong a newer theory will be tried and tested until the answer is found this how science works it doesn't give up trying to explain things and make a story up just because it can't find the answer yet.

I understand all of that but it does not address my OP does it? Thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[In_Deepthought]

Interesting but how does that answer the question as it was asked, “in the beginning” and then see #7)?




Did you happen to notice the “IF” preceding the questions?




Really, the BB theory tells me where space, energy, matter and time came from, “in the beginning”? You do know the meaning of “in the beginning” do you not?




I understand all of that but it does not address my OP does it? Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Hi,

That's my point we cant say "in the beginning" because the BB is a THEORY not proven yet it may be wrong it may be right further time and study will prove one way or another.
Just as you could argue that a creator created everything but who created the creator ?

 

[Valjean]

Where did these things come from? No one other than God can explain that and He never has and probably never will.

They said that about lightening, earthquakes and thunderstorms too, at one time. I wouldn't be so hasty in declaring space, energy and time inexplicable.

The universe is not infinite. The source of the universe is.

Now you're just preaching.

Can the age of the universe be determined? The angels know the age of the universe. Humans don't.

Why do you say that? We know a lot of things that were previously unknown.
Have you studied the evidence for the age of the universe?

You want answers that are supported by empirical scientific evidence? The rules you have stipulated here are not rules that God or the universe has to follow. You might want to do some research on quantum fluctuation/virtual particles-antiparticles.

Quantum-babble; smoke and mirrors. I don't think you know the first thing about science, physics or epistemology.
Where is the evidence for this God?

Thanks but I will pass on that offer, as I said, “I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.” …or speculations.

You don't know what a scientific theory is. It's not speculation or guesswork. Even a theorem is based on observed evidence, and it does not graduate to theory/fact status without overwhelming empirical confirmation.

Neither God nor Christian theology is supported by 'empirical scientific evidence', yet you claim to believe in them. They are special pleadings, arguments from personal incredulity and False dichotomies (google).

I am a Bible believing Christian that believes creation just as it is written by the only one that was there when it happened but, I also like and appreciate science and find it fascinating, at least the parts that can be proven.

But your beliefs are based on faith, not the empirical evidence you say you're looking for. As for "the parts that can be proven," there are no such parts. When you make statements like that you signal to all the scientifically literate posters that you don't understand science or scientific terminology.

As I have said previously, it would not bother me in the least if those who believe in cosmology evolution would just say that was what they believe rather than trying to pass it off as if being a scientific fact. They will not do that because it would make them look kind of silly when they ridicule Creationists about our unproven beliefs. Show me something that can be observed, duplicated, tested and I will agree that it is science, wholeheartedly, otherwise, it is only a belief.

Explain to me what "cosmology evolution" is and I'll try to answer your post. As I said before, I know what both terms mean, but don't see the connection.

 

[Polymath257]

Where did I ask that, can you quote my words, not yours?

You asked what was there before there was anything in post #178.

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

My point is that time is part of 'anything'. So, in asking for something before 'anything', you are asking for something before 'time'.

Also, if time began at the BB, then you are asking for time something before time.

What is your definition of “beginning”?

A beginning is an event (time and place) where things start.

In particular, if you are asking about the universe (space AND time), there *cannot* be any 'before the beginning'.

Was the “Dot/singularity” there before the BB? If so, where did it come from, what did it consist of? What triggered the “explosion”?

You have a problem with your comprehension of what the BB theory says. It does *not* state that there was a 'dot' that was triggered to explode. Instead, it says that the *observable* universe as we see it today was compressed so that it would fit into a dot at some particular time. But, at that point the universe was already expanding.

What, if anything was before the expansion started is not known. We simply have no evidence from that time period. Now, if you want to know what some *extensions* of the BB description say, we can go there. But the BB description *only* deals with the current expansion phase of the universe.

OK, which one am I supposed to believe as honest, the one that says there is no information or ones like these two?

“There has always been something, and we are part of that something.”

“It was always there?”

In every theory we have that attempts to merge quantum mechanics with general relativity (which is what is required to consider times that you are asking about), matter, energy, space, and time all exist together whenever any one of them does. None of them cause the others. They are co-equal.

So, whenever there was time, there was also the universe. This is trivially true because time is *part* of the universe. And this is the case even if time only goes finitely far into the past.

Sorry, I did not ask for “concepts”, question 1) was a yes or no question. Question 2) asked where could a creation be located. Question 3) asked how could a creation be accomplished under certain conditions. Question 4) asked for a time under stated conditions that a creation could be accomplished.

And all 4 of these have been answered by pointing out they are irrelevant. Since all 4 exist whenever any of them do, none of the questions makes sense.

Question 5) asked where space, energy, time and matter came from.

And once again, this isn't a reasonable question. You can't have 'come from' without 'before' and you can't have 'before' without 'time'. So, if there was no time, you cannot have 'come from'.

All of these were in the context of the “beginning” as defined in a common English dictionary and 7) specifically stated, “If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.”

And once again, you *assume* there was a beginning. That is very far from being proven. And, again, even if there *is* a 'start', there could not be a 'before the start' because time itself started then.

So with all of that, why not just answer the questions as they were asked, or, just ignore the post? Out of all the responses to the OP, how many answered the questions and how many tried to go off on how something could be done, or what could have or, completely off on a tangent?

No problem with that view.

I agree entirely with that comment, so, why all of the posts, with different answers, different assertions as fact and entirely different subjects from the OP, why not just honestly say as you did…answer not possible at this time? I have a theory for the answer to that question.

Because there is a deeper issue here. The question of *how* to investigate these questions has been one at issue for decades now. When I was young, the big question was how to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity into one coherent description. That is required to answer the questions that you are asking. At that time, nobody had been able to do that merger.

We now have several competing ways to accomplish this merger. They ALL are consistent with everything we know, but we do not know how to test between them. But where they do agree, we can have some confidence that the common answer is correct. The answers that I and other have given that go beyond 'we do not know' take into consideration what these different descriptions say.

So, we cannot say with certainty at this time, but we also know the range of possible answers.

 

[Ted Evans]

That's my point we cant say "in the beginning" because the BB is a THEORY

Oh my, I must admit, I have no argument with that logic. We cannot talk about, "in the beginning", because the BB is just a theory. And I thought I had heard pretty much all.

 

[Valjean]

I think you have missed the point of my questions and the phrase, “in the beginning”. Much of creation cannot be explained and proven with empirical science; it is a belief, a hypothesis, a theory, not empirical science. Same for Creationists, we cannot prove with empirical science that God created the universe, we admit that, or at least I do. Yet, oft times I get ridiculed for my “beliefs” whereas the CE tries to come across very authoritatively and that their views are “science” whereas mine is a belief in some fairy tale. The problem is, and as is demonstrated in this thread, they have no verifiable proof of how the universe was created “in the beginning”, it is a belief, no different than my belief.

It is based on observable, testable evidence. it is falsifiable. Biblical creationism is based on none of these. it is, in fact, a 'fairy tale'.

IOW, what does the age of the universe have to do with where the four components for creation come from?

What are these four components of creation? -- and don't say matter, energy space and time. They were "created" like everything else.

You even admit that it is not provable science when you say, “and the scientists will alter their views if differing good evidence is found.” IF, the evidence is a provable fact, then there should be no need for “differing good evidence” is there?

Science never "proves" anything. All scientific theories/facts are provisional. Unlike religion, nothing is writ in stone. Everything is testable and falsifiable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(I'm trying to figure out how much effort it will take me to determine what this thread is about.)

 

[Ted Evans]

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.

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.

We never will get any coherent answers except from those that are honest enough to say "we do not know" it is just our belief which we cannot prove. Of course, most are not about to make that admission because then it would be a "belief" just like the Creationist's belief and they are much too educated and smart for that. No doubt, given billlllions and billlllions of years, they will have the answer. Actually, I believe they will have the answer much sooner than that but it will not be one of their liking.

 

[Valjean]

If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.” And I would add, unsupported opinions.

A theory does not become a theory if it's not supported by overwhelming empirical evidence.
Yet again, "theory" in science, means supported by overwhelming empirical evidence, tested, and submitted for criticism.

 

[Ted Evans]

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

Sorry, but I do not intend to answer any more of your questions when you do not answer mine. Not trying to be a jerk but IMO, fair is fair.

 

[Super Universe]

They said that about lightening, earthquakes and thunderstorms too, at one time. I wouldn't be so hasty in declaring space, energy and time inexplicable.
Now you're just preaching.
Why do you say that? We know a lot of thing that were previously unknown.
Have you studied the evidence for the age of the universe?
Quantum-babble; smoke and mirrors. I don't think you know the first thing about science, physics or epistemology.
Where is the evidence for this God?
You don't know what a scientific theory is. It's not speculation or guesswork. Even a theorem is based on observed evidence, and it does not graduate to theory/fact status without overwhelming empirical confirmation.

They said that only God can explain lightening, earthquakes, and thunderstorms? So therefore everything must be knowable? You are incorrect.

You wouldn't be so hasty in declaring space, energy, and time inexplicable? I didn't say they were inexplicable. We know a great deal about them but we won't know about the original source of God unless He decides to reveal that information, and He probably won't ever do that.

Me preach? You do realize that this is a religious forum, right?

Have I studied the evidence for the age of the universe? Yes, it's based upon the idea that gravity did not exist until after the Big Bang. That is a violation of the laws of physics as we know it. There isn't even a theory as to how gravity wouldn't work.

You don't think I know the first thing about science? I probably don't. I just learned the second, third, and fourth things.

Where is the evidence for God? My evidence is the universe. What's yours?

 

[Ted Evans]

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

OK, I got it, no matter how many times I emphasize the point, "Keeping in mind, in the beginning", you are going to ignore it. Since you offer no evidence that is "capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment" and since there are many others that disagree with your assertions, I choose to believe their views, I am sure you will understand my position.