Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

So when I said it is impossible to go back and "see" what happened millions of years ago, I'm going back to evolution. (the theory of) No videos, and really nothing to show the proposition without doubt. I do agree that plant life, for instance, happened BEFORE humans were on the earth. I also think the atmosphere changed on the earth so that life as we know it was enabled.

Fossils show that marine animals have existed at least a hundred of thousands of years before the earliest land plants (Ordovician period).

Early primitive sponges have existed as early as the Tonian period, so about 800 million ago, were among the earliest evidence of marine animals.

plus, the earliest groups of terrestrial plants that reproduced via spores, not by seeds. Seed-bearing plants didn’t exist until the Carboniferous period, about 319 million years ago. While flowering plants didn’t exist until the early Cretaceous period, about 130 million years ago.

Genesis 1’s claims about seed-bearing and flower-bearing plants created at the same time, were clearly wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossils show that marine animals have existed at least a hundred of thousands of years before the earliest land plants (Ordovician period).

Early primitive sponges have existed as early as the Tonian period, so about 800 million ago, were among the earliest evidence of marine animals.

plus, the earliest groups of terrestrial plants that reproduced via spores, not by seeds. Seed-bearing plants didn’t exist until the Carboniferous period, about 319 million years ago. While flowering plants didn’t exist until the early Cretaceous period, about 130 million years ago.

Genesis 1’s claims about seed-bearing and flower-bearing plants created at the same time, were clearly wrong.

I denoted that humans -- came after plants.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fossils show that marine animals have existed at least a hundred of thousands of years before the earliest land plants (Ordovician period).

Early primitive sponges have existed as early as the Tonian period, so about 800 million ago, were among the earliest evidence of marine animals.

plus, the earliest groups of terrestrial plants that reproduced via spores, not by seeds. Seed-bearing plants didn’t exist until the Carboniferous period, about 319 million years ago. While flowering plants didn’t exist until the early Cretaceous period, about 130 million years ago.

Genesis 1’s claims about seed-bearing and flower-bearing plants created at the same time, were clearly wrong.

No matter how you look at it, each "day" in the creation account is (to me) obviously not a 24-hour period, but much longer. Anyway, have a good day. and night, etc. in this 24-hour system now.

 

[Polymath257]

I denoted that humans -- came after plants.

Yes, humans came after the first plants. So?

 

[McBell]

Yes, humans came after the first plants. So?

I suspect they are merely pointing out that the Bible, much like a blind squirrel occasionally finding a nut, does get science right occasionally.

though, personally, I have no idea what that has to do with this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

I was looking at definitions of light, something I have not explored before. It is very interesting, and of course, complex because there are terms that require further explanation as well as concepts.

Feel free to ask.

Physicists tend to use the word “light” for any electromagnetic wave, whether it is from visible light or not. So, radio is considered to be “light” since it is simply an electromagnetic wave of low frequency.

This differs, of course, with common language. It is also the result of an understanding that visible light is actually a type of electromagnetic wave.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not so. The future is a direction in time and the past is the opposite direction.

Ok, then just as the future is a direction in time, and the past is the opposite, south is a direction in space and north is the opposite direction.

Therefore, it follows that the south direction does not stop at the South Pole, it is just that wrt Earth itself, it is the furthest point south.
Likewise, it follows that the past direction does not stop at the universe's BB beginning, it is just that wrt Universe, there is nothing existing before the BB.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, my understanding is that there was simply no before the BB, just like there is no south of the South Pole.

But the reality represented by "no before the BB", has to be timeless wrt the past direction of time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, humans came after the first plants. So?

Well, going back in time (not "light-wise"), scientists do say that land animals came after (evolved, they say) from fish. I'm taking this step-by-step as much as possible. And yes, there were no video recorders back then to actually verify the minuscule changes as purportedly happening. And -- we cannot track light back to reveal how that happened.

 

[YoursTrue]

From water to land

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, then just as the future is a direction in time, and the past is the opposite, south is a direction in space and north is the opposite direction.

Therefore, it follows that the south direction does not stop at the South Pole, it is just that wrt Earth itself, it is the furthest point south.
Likewise, it follows that the past direction does not stop at the universe's BB beginning, it is just that wrt Universe, there is nothing existing before the BB.

By that poor logic "south" does not stop at the South Pole. Of course it is just an analogy to get you to understand the idea that there is no "before the Big Bang". Why are you going out of your way not to understand a simple analogy. That is the act of a person that knows that the is wrong but does not want to admit it.

 

[MelancholicPotatoChip]

Because...

I know of 32 hypothesis of how the universe possibly began. Each one is either based on observable phenomena and extrapolated back to pre BB or on mathematics using the same criteria.

No god needed.

Hello Christine

 

[gnostic]

I denoted that humans -- came after plants.

For Genesis 1, yes.

Not for Genesis 2. So, no here…it contradicted Genesis 1.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

By that poor logic "south" does not stop at the South Pole. Of course it is just an analogy to get you to understand the idea that there is no "before the Big Bang". Why are you going out of your way not to understand a simple analogy. That is the act of a person that knows that the is wrong but does not want to admit it.

I understand what it is meant to try and mislead us to believe, but it fails as an analogy as the south direction does not stop at the South Pole. The Southern Cross star constellation for example is called that because it is in the south direction past the South Pole. Likewise, "before the BB" in the direction of past time means just that, reality prior to the BB. And logically we understand that reality to be nonexistence, which we also know to be nonexistent. so what reality are we left with in the past time direction of the BB?

 

[YoursTrue]

For Genesis 1, yes.

Not for Genesis 2. So, no here…it contradicted Genesis 1.

I don't see a contradiction. It's a brief enough summary leading up to life as we know it now on this planet.

 

[gnostic]

I understand what it is meant to try and mislead us to believe, but it fails as an analogy as the south direction does not stop at the South Pole. The Southern Cross star constellation for example is called that because it is in the south direction past the South Pole.

You know. The constellations, including the Southern Cross, are not real. These are only patterns that star-gazers could see, because these are the stars closer and brighter to the Earth’s observers…so these constellation coordinates only apply to Earth’s perspective.

if we were to live in another planet that are outside of our Solar System, we would have to invent a whole new set of constellations, as our current constellations wouldn’t apply.

If we were to live in another planet, in a star system like V762 Cas, which is the furthest star that can seen, NAKED-EYE, which is 16,000 light-year away, much of the constellations won’t apply, if we were to live on planet of V762 Cas star. Our perspective of the night sky would be very different to the one from Earth.

And in another example. If we were to move to and live in another planet of yet another star system, but say in another galaxy like Andromeda, none of the stars we do see in our night sky (on Earth), without any telescope. All the stars would be completely different.

While V762 Cas may be 16,000 light-year from Earth, it is a star within the Milky Way. Every stars that we can see without using any telescope, are all stars that are located within our local sector of the Milky Way. We currently don’t see stars that are further away than V762 Cas, because of the limitations of our eyesight.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You know. The constellations, including the Southern Cross, are not real. These are only patterns that star-gazers could see, because these are the stars closer and brighter to the Earth’s observers…so these constellation coordinates only apply to Earth’s perspective.

if we were to live in another planet that are outside of our Solar System, we would have to invent a whole new set of constellations, as our current constellations wouldn’t apply.

If we were to live in another planet, in a star system like V762 Cas, which is the furthest star that can seen, NAKED-EYE, which is 16,000 light-year away, much of the constellations won’t apply, if we were to live on planet of V762 Cas star. Our perspective of the night sky would be very different to the one from Earth.

And in another example. If we were to move to and live in another planet of yet another star system, but say in another galaxy like Andromeda, none of the stars we do see in our night sky (on Earth), without any telescope. All the stars would be completely different.

While V762 Cas may be 16,000 light-year from Earth, it is a star within the Milky Way. Every stars that we can see without using any telescope, are all stars that are located within our local sector of the Milky Way. We currently don’t see stars that are further away than V762 Cas, because of the limitations of our eyesight.

I have no idea of why you think any of that is relevant?

Polymath uses as an analogy that there is 'no before the BB' in the same way there is no south beyond the South Pole.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see a contradiction. It's a brief enough summary leading up to life as we know it now on this planet.

Then you need to read your Bible again because there are clearly different orders between the two. It is even more obvious if one is a biblical scholar and can read it in Hebrew. Some people try to improperly use modern English grammar to explain away the discrepancies. The problem is that those modern methods of speech did not exist in ancient Hebrew. The most accurate translation causes two different orders to exist.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see a contradiction. It's a brief enough summary leading up to life as we know it now on this planet.

wow. You reading comprehension is very selective.

The order of creation are different between Genesis 1 & Genesis 2, differed.

In Genesis 1, the order is - plants, marine animals & birds, land animals, then human.

In Genesis 2, the order is - human (man), then plants, animals and human (woman).

in Genesis 2:5, it clearly stated there were no plants anywhere on Earth, when Adam was created in verse 2:7. Plants were only created after Adam, in 2:8, followed by animals in 2:19. So in 2:7, human (Adam) was created BEFORE plants (2:8) and land animals (2:19) and birds (2:19).

 

[gnostic]

But the reality represented by "no before the BB", has to be timeless wrt the past direction of time.

Remember that the BB theory, the explanations have only applied to our observations of the Observable Universe, so there are no before the Big Bang.

You are looking at alternative cosmological models, like one of the models of Multiverse (that you had favoured in previous posts), which go beyond the BB perspective…except those other alternative models, including the Multiverse, are currently untestable & untested, and are not (yet) “science”…and may never be science.

You seemed to forget that science HAVE TO BE BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE & DATA. Untested models are never accepted as science.

Sure, the BB theory, do have some problems, but what theories are completely void of unanswered questions, or of mysteries?

And sure, alternative models may think “outside-the-box” of the big bang theory, but what good are the out-of-box alternatives, if you cannot test them in any ways?

For any new hypothesis to become a new scientific theory, the hypothesis must undergo the 2nd half of Scientific Method, which is to test the hypothesis.

Without tests, how do we determine whether a hypothesis is any good?