In the beginning...

[Polymath257]

How can that be true when you say that space, matter, time and energy have always been? Your suggestion seems to be there was a "starting point" does it not?

Really, no such thing? So you are saying this quote is completely wrong, is that right?


“Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external…”

Yes, it is wrong. Demonstrably so. For example, gravitational fields change how time 'flows'. This has been demonstrated in the lab. Speeds close to that of light can also change the rate of time 'flow'. Again, this is known from actual experiments in labs around the world.

In particular, matter and energy affect time (and also space, by the way). The amount of curvature of spacetime depends on the mass and energy. This is the basis of general relativity, which again has been extensively tested.

 

[gnostic]

The current expansion phase is about 13.7 billion years old. What, if anything was before that is unknown. At this point, we don't even know if 'before' is meaningful here.

I agree, many “unknowns” but still not science, agree?

No.

Science have been able to detect and measure the earliest photons, known as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), first from radio telescope at Bell Laboratory in 1964. Since, then as better technology developed and advanced, we get increasingly better and more detailed measurements of CMBR, and space telescopes, starting with COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, 1989-1993), then WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, 2001-) and Planck (2009-2013) have allow science to calculate the universe age, with greater precision.

The CMBR has been measured to 13.7 billion years ago. In the Big Bang timeline, that's 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

377,000 years marked the beginning of Recombination epoch. This is when ionised hydrogen and helium atoms became stable electrical neutral atoms. The became neutral atoms, when electrons bonded with the positive-charged hydrogen and helium nuclei.

Before the Recombination epoch, the younger universe was in a hot plasma state, which made the universe before Recombination epoch opaque. We cannot detect earlier light than the CMBR because photons quickly get reabsorbed by plasma state of hydrogen and helium nuclei.

The electrons bonding with atomic nuclei (during the Recombination epoch) have several effects upon the universe.

1. It made universe transparent, and therefore observable.
2. Photons (CMBR) was now able to free travel through space without getting reabsorbed by nuclei.
3. The Recombination epoch paved the way for development of large structure formations, in this case, the formation of the earliest stars and galaxies, about 150 million years after the Big Bang.

My point is that, science don't have the technology yet, to observe beyond the Recombination epoch. The earlier universe is currently unpenetratable, due to the hot plasma state of the universe, acting like Event Horizon.

The universe is definitely older than the Recombination epoch, because the CMBR is already about 13.7 billion years old.

That radio telescopes and space telescopes equipped with instruments that can detect anisotropic cosmic radiations, showed that the bi Bang is a well-tested theory.

Can we learn more about the universe? Definitely. Are there still mysteries in the universe that scientists don't know about? Of course.

You have to remember that the cosmology is ongoing project,and we don't know all the answers, but science has only just started.

 

[Ted Evans]

Frankly, if you really want detailed scientific explanations of these things, you’d be better off asking for them in some kind of formal scientific forum rather than a religious debate one.

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.

 

[gnostic]

Let me cut in here on this, and I hope that @gnostic doesn't mind.

I don't mind at all.

Actually it is a lot better than any post of mine, regarding to the differences between hypothesis and theory.

 

[shmogie]

k dow

Sounds like magic to me so I will wait for you to prove that space, time, energy and matter have always been here, there, somewhere, oh, and with empirical science, your word does not convince me.

According to the big bang theory, nothing existed before the bang, except a purely fabricated tiny spot of infinite density, called a singularity, the same thing at the bottom of a black hole. Singularity is cosmology speak for "we don't know what it is ". Mathematically, moving in retrograde from a few seconds before the bang, all physics break down just before the bang ( measured in Planck time). Thus the singularity can never be proven to have existed. Since Einstein proved the existence of spacetime, it is very clear that both were created at the bang. E=MC squared proves that the massive amount of energy at the bang was converted into matter. So, the universe was created from outside the universe, by forces scientifically unknown, just speculated about. As to "we know the universe is 14 billion years old", Einstein proved that time is relative, variable and can actually stop". So, yes,today the universe measures approx. 14 billion light years across, seemingly making it appear 14 billion years old. THis age is based on the assumption that the universe expanded at the rate of the mathematical models for TODAY's time. No one was there, no one can ensure that time functioned at the rate we know today during the expansion and creation of matter, stars planets etc.. IT SEEMS to have happened over 14 billion years, but, if as predicted time could be manipulated, and was the real time creation of the universe could have been 6,000 years ago, as an example.

 

[Ted Evans]

It was always there?
Where did god come from?

Really, and you can prove that and if so how and will you?

I have no idea and would not even attempt to suggest that I know, but, I do not call my beliefs, science.

It is interesting to how many ignore the OP…”7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.”

 

[Polymath257]

Really, and you can prove that and if so how and will you?

I have no idea and would not even attempt to suggest that I know, but, I do not call my beliefs, science.

It is interesting to how many ignore the OP…”7) If anyone cares to answer, I am looking for answers that can be supported by empirical scientific evidence, not theories.”

And once again, the expansion of the universe, its age, etc are based on empirical scientific evidence and are not simply speculation.

And, once again, going back before about a millisecond into the current expansion is going to be speculative, no matter what.

But, and this is important, what we do know can provide some insights even into those areas of speculation. There are not many ways to produce a quantum theory of gravity. So anything that is common to all of the ones we have found (as hypotheses) should be taken seriously. Fair?

 

[Ted Evans]

But if you extrapolate backwards from where we are now at the rate of growth that can be measured, we get 13.77 billion years. So yes we can.

OK, how reliably? I have bolded some of the operative words in the quote below. BTW, I have numerous questions about dating the universe but that is another topic.

“Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall.”

 

[gnostic]

According to the big bang theory, nothing existed before the bang, except a purely fabricated tiny spot of infinite density, called a singularity, the same thing at the bottom of a black hole. Singularity is cosmology speak for "we don't know what it is ". Mathematically, moving in retrograde from a few seconds before the bang, all physics break down just before the bang ( measured in Planck time).

Good, but not quite right.

A stellar black hole is indeed a singularity, but it is not the same as singularity of BEFORE the Big Bang.

When a very massive star run out of hydrogen to fuse, the gravity of the dead massive star will cause to collapse on itself, both the outer layers and the core of the star will become very dense and indistinguishable from each other.

The stellar black hole's singularity is where the star core collapsed upon itself, due to the extreme concentration of mass, which produced extreme gravity. Any object approaches the event horizon, will get pull in by the gravity; even light won't escape the pull.

But stellar black hole is not "nothing".

The singularity doesn't mean "nothing", not even with the Big Bang singularity.

As to "we know the universe is 14 billion years old", Einstein proved that time is relative, variable and can actually stop". So, yes,today the universe measures approx. 14 billion light years across, seemingly making it appear 14 billion years old.

That's also not exactly correct.

The Big Bang only described the known and observable universe. The singularity is still speculation, and the earlier epochs (before the Recombination epoch) after the Big Bang are still theoretical and hypothetical.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, how reliably? I have bolded some of the operative words in the quote below. BTW, I have numerous questions about dating the universe but that is another topic.

“Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall.”

I suspect this quote is an older one. There have been significant advances in our understanding of the age of the universe over the past 20 years or so. The current 'estimates' are around 13.8 billion years.

One of the aspects is that *all* conclusions of science are based on our 'best estimates'. That is why real scientific numbers have 'error bars' on them representing the degree to which we are uncertain. In my lifetime, the 'best estimate' for the age of the universe has gone from 'between 10 and 20 billion years' to 13.799+-.021 billion years. In other words, our degree of uncertainty is now about .15%.
The age of the Earth is 4.54+-.05 billion years, which is about a 1% uncertainty.

In a similar way, you can 'estimate' that I am 54 years old, when I am actually closer to 54.5 years old. But even that is an 'estimate', but I don't feel like spending the time to get 6 decimal places of accuracy here. And there is no possibility of getting 10 decimal places of accuracy.

 

[Sunstone]

You're actually pulling the bait and switch on me, now?

Can you do any better than to offer a stupid response to a legitimate request? What does the word "theory" mean to you?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, how reliably? I have bolded some of the operative words in the quote below. BTW, I have numerous questions about dating the universe but that is another topic.

“Until recently, astronomers estimated that the Big Bang occurred between 12 and 14 billion years ago. To put this in perspective, the Solar System is thought to be 4.5 billion years old and humans have existed as a genus for only a few million years. Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall.”

You might look at the following article. It seems to have good information based on the most recent published data:

Age of the universe - Wikipedia

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

No one knows the answers to these questions; certainly not ancient nomadic goat-herders.

 

[ChristineM]

Okay, so just answer his questions and stop with the word games.

After you answer this, what did your god stand on to create the universe from nothing?

Yes nothing, read Genesis

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Matter from energy

Scientists discover how to turn light into matter after 80-year quest

 

[Jose Fly]

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?

Because they're not equivalent. On one hand you have generations of scientists working on figuring out these questions, making progress, collecting data, conducting tests, doing analyses, correcting any errors, revising their ideas to accommodate new data.......IOW doing science.

OTOH you have fundamentalist Christians who take one chapter of a 2,000 year old book as a literal account of how everything happened, declare it to be the final unquestionable answer, and never do one lick of science or research into the actual question. This is reflected in AiG's Statement of Faith where they declare....

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."​

Not only is that the exact opposite of science, it's basically a clear statement that AiG has no interest in doing science at all. So essentially what you've done here is committed the fallacy of false equivalence, and trying to say that since neither of these two groups, even though they are polar opposites, can currently "prove" how the universe came to be, then they're both just "beliefs" and are equally valid.

I'd say "nice try", but I've seen this too many times from creationists. The fact that creationists so regularly try and equate their religious beliefs with actual science tells me that deep down, they crave scientific credibility for their beliefs. If they didn't, why bother with all this equivalence nonsense? Just let science do what it does and you keep believing in your book.

 

[Ted Evans]

Answers in Genesis is a Christian apologetics group whose sole aim is to prove the bible . If the evidence proves contrary to their aims they ignore it. That is NOT science.

Absolutely, I agree and my point being I suggested a bias source just as you had done. So far, I have seen no one in this group that can answer the questions that I have asked with verifiable, empirical science, only beliefs and opinions. Now, are you going to honestly tell me that the source that you suggested are not biased?

 

[Jose Fly]

Show me something that can be observed, duplicated, tested and I will agree that it is science, wholeheartedly, otherwise, it is only a belief.

So according to your framework, that the earth orbits the sun is "only a belief".

 

[Ted Evans]

No.

Do I understand you correctly that even the “unknowns” is science?

It seems to me that some want to move the topic from, “In the beginning” where did space, matter, time and energy come from to an entirely different subject, interesting but not the focus of the OP.

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

 

[Ted Evans]

It upsets me too that creationists are fed ignorance by Ken Ham, AiG and the likes. CE is scientific, it is based on good evidence and the scientists will alter their views if differing good evidence is found.

Did I tell you what Ham says, or did I ask you questions about science, empirical science? If, science cannot answer those questions with verifiable, observable, repeatable test then it is not “empirical” science, would you agree with that? If not, then we have no reason for any further dialogue on the subject.

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?