In the beginning...

[Jose Fly]

If, science cannot answer those questions with verifiable, observable, repeatable test then it is not “empirical” science, would you agree with that?

You seem to have this weird impression that "science" is the answer to a unknown, rather than the process used to arrive at the answer, so that until the answer is reached, no "science" has been conducted.

Where in the world did you get such a mistaken view?

 

[DavidFirth]

Ted, its time to journey on, bro. Endless argument solves nothing.

"If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet."

 

[Ted Evans]

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

Seasons can be observed and according to some, there are other observations which I will quote.

So yes, for me it is a belief in the sense that I have not observed the orbital motion but apparently, others have.

“The most direct observational evidence for Earth's orbital motion is the apparent shift of nearby stars after six months, as the Earth moves from one side of its orbit to the other. Because of the large distance to even the nearest star, this parallax shift is too small to be seen without a telescope. You can see how parallax works by moving your head from side to side and observing how nearby objects appear to move relative to the background.”

How can I prove that the earth rotates around the sun?

But then, like in much good science, there are different views

"But the Earth does not revolve around the Sun. At least, not exactly. Time to get pedantic.

"Technically, what is going on is that the Earth, Sun and all the planets are orbiting around the center of mass of the solar system," writes Cathy Jordan, a Cornell University Ask an Astronomer contributor.

"The center of mass of our solar system very close to the Sun itself, but not exactly at the Sun's center."

Technically, Earth Does Not Orbit Around the Sun | RealClearScience

 

[Ted Evans]

You seem to have this weird impression that "science" is the answer to a unknown, rather than the process used to arrive at the answer, so that until the answer is reached, no "science" has been conducted.

Where in the world did you get such a mistaken view?

You seem to have ignored my question; does that mean that you have no answer, only a deflection?

 

[Ted Evans]

Do you use the same standard of evidence when it comes to God? That you must be able to observe God directly?

I do not see where you answered my questions, why should I answer yours? Which I would have no problem in doing but I can be unreasonable that way.

 

[shmogie]

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.



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.

The black hole singularity is described much as the pre bang singularity, a point of infinite gravity. Nevertheless, no one knows if either statement is correct. The pre bang singularity can never be known, it existed outside the universe, a place we can never go. The black hole singularity is described, and you summed it up well, but that description is pure speculation, no one knows what the singularity at the bottom of it is. Is there a worm hole ?, where does all the matter go ? etc. etc. I never said singularity meant nothing, I said it was a term meaning an unknown, it probably exists, but what it is ? Only informed guess work as a description. Yes, the big bang is hypothetical, and will continue to be. I am very comfortable with it. With a little tweaking it fits my world view extremely well.

 

[Ted Evans]

Empirical evidences are the measurements of the stars, distances, red shift. To really get an answer you will need to learn some things, particularly if you do not trust Astronomers.

I agree with your previous comments and I do not summarily distrust Astronomers. I think it would be a fascinating study but with that being said, I do not accept their authoritative assertions when they use phrases such as, “we think, it is possible, the speculation is, our belief at this time is, it could be” etc. as empirical science. I also have questions when there are many folks with the same or higher IQ, with the same letters behind their names, degrees from the same institutions, the same data but have differing “opinions” on the same subject. Beliefs, speculations and educated opinions are great, I like to read them but please be upfront and say that it is exactly that, a belief, not empirical science.

 

[Thief]

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 theories?.....like someone will have a piece of that pre-existence stuff you ask about

not likely

 

[Thief]

I would suggest reading Steven Hawking's "The Grand Design". It answers your questions pretty well. And, just as a spoiler, he explains very well how God or any designer is in no way necessary to explain the origin of the universe.

so you DO believe.....substance has it's own volition!!!!!!
and dead material can replicate in huge quantities....
just because it 'wants to'

the dead do not beget the living

 

[Jose Fly]

Seasons can be observed and according to some, there are other observations which I will quote.

So yes, for me it is a belief in the sense that I have not observed the orbital motion but apparently, others have.

“The most direct observational evidence for Earth's orbital motion is the apparent shift of nearby stars after six months, as the Earth moves from one side of its orbit to the other. Because of the large distance to even the nearest star, this parallax shift is too small to be seen without a telescope. You can see how parallax works by moving your head from side to side and observing how nearby objects appear to move relative to the background.”

How can I prove that the earth rotates around the sun?

But that doesn't meet the standard you described: "something that can be observed, duplicated, tested" at which point you "will agree that it is science, wholeheartedly, otherwise, it is only a belief."

It isn't a direct observation of the earth making an entire orbit around the sun, let alone duplicating the observation. More accurately, it's a mathematical inference (something you have been dismissing as insufficient in this thread) But as you say, "yes, for me it is a belief in the sense that I have not observed the orbital motion".

I'm content to let that speak for itself.

 

[Ted Evans]

"Not theories"? What's a "theory" to you?

I know what a “scientific theory” is and what it is to me is a thought that cannot be proven with empirical science. I have been in discussions with those about the "scientific theories" that proved a point but ran into the same problem, they could not answer my questions and the articles they suggested and the ones that I read on my own, had numerous phrases such as, "we think, it is possible, the speculation is, our belief at this time is, it could be” etc.

The OP just asked simple questions as to where space, energy, matter and time came from, in the beginning, it is not a discussion on quantum physics or hyperspace. Although I realize that works to get the person's mind off the fact that science cannot answer the questions asked.

 

[Ted Evans]

We reject creationism because it is unjustified belief.

Thanks but I have no interest in your sermons and as the OP clearly stated, which many seem to ignore,

“7) 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.

 

[Jose Fly]

You seem to have ignored my question; does that mean that you have no answer, only a deflection?

Your questions have been answered multiple times by multiple people. My answers would pretty much be the same as what you've gotten so far from those here who are better able to describe the science than I am. In case you haven't noticed, the ratio of science advocates to creationists is pretty skewed at RF, so there's no need to demand every single person answer every single one of your questions before you'll interact with them.

Now, how about clearing something up for me? Where did you get the idea that "science" doesn't occur until something has been proven, rather than being the process that is used to generate the outcome?

 

[Ted Evans]

Nobody knows. They may have existed in some form eternally.

Thanks for the comments and that makes the point of my OP, science cannot answer the question where those four components came from, “in the beginning”. It is a belief just like Creationists has the belief that God created them in the beginning. If, they could have always existed in some form, then does that not cause a problem for CE when they scoff at a Creationist saying that God always existed?

 

[Jose Fly]

Thanks for the comments and that makes the point of my OP, science cannot answer the question where those four components came from, “in the beginning”. It is a belief just like Creationists has the belief that God created them in the beginning.

(sorry to jump in @sayak83 but this is my point in this thread)

You've presented quite the all-or-none, black/white scenario there. From your POV, it's either 100% completely proven, or it's "just a belief", no different than any other made-up belief. No other possibility exists.

To be honest with you, that's such a ridiculous framework from which to operate, I can't believe anyone would actually say it out loud. Do you really function this way out in the real world?

 

[Ted Evans]

I have. Their evidence was not convincing. It didn't provide explanations for the mounds upon mounds of contradicting evidence beyond just saying certain scientists were incompetent and their methods severely flawed, which just isn't true.

OK, do you have any specifics, relative to the OP in this thread, that you can share?

Many science articles I have read never presented any documented facts that refuted the creationist, they only ridiculed them for their beliefs.

Now does that sway your opinion? No, I did not think so, for the same reason that your allegation does not sway mine.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know what a “scientific theory” is and what it is to me is a thought that cannot be proven with empirical science.

@Sunstone .....why do you think this is one fundamental area where creationists seem to be universally ignorant?

 

[Ted Evans]

I assume you have heard of nuclear weapons? They are based on this equation.

But it has been demonstrated every time a nuclear reaction happens (nuclear decay, for example, any reaction in a particle accelerator lab, as another).

So, yes, this has been extensively demonstrated in labs and on a daily basis.

Yes, by golly, I have heard a rumor about nuclear weapons, I was in the Air Force.

So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion? Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning? What was the source of that energy, what was the trigger?

 

[Ted Evans]

You've presented quite the all-or-none, black/white scenario there.

Sorry, I am exhausted by all of the deflections and diversions by those that have no answers as they were asked in the OP.

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

BTW, what I think is ridiculous is some one that believes in the beginning there was nothing, then nothing exploded although they do not know how or what caused it, and over billllllions of years nothing created the universe, that is what I find ludicrous.

 

[Ted Evans]

But that doesn't meet the standard you described:

What part of, “So yes, for me it is a belief”? Is there some less complex way that I can phrase this so you will understand? Or, do you just think it is a “gottch”?