Best evidence for Creation

If the universe had a beginning?be·gin·ning
noun
1. The act or process of bringing or being brought into being; a start.
2. The time when something begins or is begun: the beginning of the war.
3. The place where something begins or is begun: at the beginning of the road.
4. A source; an origin: What was the beginning of the dispute?
5. The first part: The front matter is at the beginning of the book.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.beginning = originHawking said "the evidence indicate the universe has not always existed but had a beginning"...Peebles mentions the beginning of the universe.A beginning of the universe, a start, an origin would require a creation.cre·a·tion
1.
a. The act of creating.
b. The fact or state of having been created.
2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
3.
a. The world and all things in it.
b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination: the latest creation in the field of computer design.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.creation
Noun
1. a creating or being created
2. something brought into existence or createdCreation
Noun
Christianity
1. God's act of bringing the universe into being
2. the universe as thus brought into being by God
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006creation = something created, brought into existence.Universe had a beginning = origin.
Creation = point something brought into existence.You informed me that no thing not even 'outside help' could exist in an 'absence of any thing'. In Message 49So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.Brian stated in the OP: "So, creationists, what do you consider to be the best evidence for creation and why?"The universe having a beginning is the best evidence for creation because if it was not brought into existence we would not be having such fun discussing it.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

You informed me outside help could not exist in an absence of any thing. Message 49.That would mean that no thing could exist in an absence of any thing.The universe is made of energy and mass. These are some things.Energy and mass could not exist in an absence of any thing.Therefore 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin, it had to be created/formed out of energy and mass which is some thing.That some thing would have to be in existence some where for it to be formed into the present universe.Therefore I make the statement: "So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method."cavediver you know I do not believe the universe had a beginning 13.7 billion years ago.I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not the form we see it today.I am only arguing the point that 'IF' the universe had a beginning/origin it had to be created/formed:ex nihilo out of no thing which you say outside help could not exist there, which means no thing could exist there.
or
from some thing already in existence.Either way it had to be created/formed IF it had a beginning.So if the universe had a beginning it had to be created you pick the way it was created.We are talking about what takes place between T=0 and T=10^-43 as being the beginning aren't we?You have told me something existed at T=0.
You have also told me that from that something the universe existed at T=10^-43.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, 'we' don't.I think I do but I could be wrong, Bluejay could be right.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : spelling

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Did I miss something in the OP?Brian did state in the OP: Brian did say: "evidence FOR creation".creation from Message 73
Noun
1. a creating or being created
2. something brought into existence or createdBrian did not specify creation of what. But I assumed he was referring to the universe as he mentioned the Evo/Creo debate.I presented evidence from Hawking that the universe did not always exist but had a beginning.So Hawking believes in creation but he found a way to eliminate the need for God in the process. He came up with Imaginary time.I also presented evidence where Peebles mentions a beginning.The evidence indicates the universe had a beginning.If it had a beginning that means it came into existence which is creation.If it came into existence it could only do so in 1 of 2 ways.It came into existence ex nihilo. Created out of no thing.
This requires a God of some kind.ORIt came into existence out of some thing that was already in existence.
This requires existence.This is my choice)God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Where do you get that definition of beginning?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This is where this quote originally came from in Message 73 in context. Here Hawking says:

quote:

---

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

---

Hawking said the evidence indicated the universe did not always exist.Was Hawking wrong? Yes/NoHawking said it had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.Was Hawking wrong. Yes/NoHawking said this is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.Was Hawking wrong. Yes/NoHawking said it is now taken for granted.Was Hawking wrong. Yes/NoIf the universe did not always exist but now it does exist it had to come into existence.To come into existence it had to be created/formed ex nihilo. (Out of an absence of any thing)ORIt had to be created/formed from material that was already in existence.You informed me that no thing not even 'outside help' could exist in an 'absence of any thing'. In Message 49Thus my statement you keep having such a problem with.So 'IF' the universe had a beginning as per Hawking and Peebles, It had to be brought into existence from some thing that was in existence by some method.The above evidence is the best evidence for creation.Creation = some thing that did not exist beginning to exist.If Hawking was wrong and you have a better answer now would be a good time to present it.God Bless.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Since you have a hard time reading a thread I will present the evidence again just for you.To quote P.J.E. Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology page 6: For the Hawking evidence you can check Message 84God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

So are you saying that neither is a possibility?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

If the BBT only covers from T=10^-43 the universe had to exist at T=10^-43 as it was already expanding.Hawking has imaginary time or vertical time at T=0. Which I call eternal time.Hawking Turok have an instanton that becomes a self-expanding open universe.So I am not sure what Hawking truly believes.Concerning whether Hawking was right about a beginning about 15 billion years ago you said: I believe he was wrong as the universe has always existed in some form. Energy and matter can not be created or destroyed. Why is my statement incorrect?The universe did not exist.
The universe does now exist.
To exist now it had to come into existence.So in essence you are saying:The universe did not have to come into existence to exist now.Could you please explain how that is possible.As I don't understand the logic.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I have been talking about the universe coming into existence.Not about existence coming into existence.I believe existence has always been. I do have a different name for existence.I believe the mass and energy that our universe was formed from has always existed just not in the form we see it today.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

seemed to predict the universe had a beginning.That seems to suggest it came into existence.they could not determine how the universe would have begun.That seems to suggest the how is unknown. I have read about string theory and brane theory.The problem with those are how do you see past the hot beginning. Here Son Goku gives the earliest temperature we know. If it was that hot and that dense how do you trace anything past that point?Imagination?Faith?Some other way?God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : Fixed link

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Do you mean inside our universe as locally?Then what would globally be and how would you know? One shared by those who believe in string theory, brane theory and the bounce theory. I think we agree the universe exists.I think the universe has always existed in some form. You disagree saying that is an assertion. So you do not think it has always existed in some form.I say if it has not always existed it had to have a beginning and come into existence. You disagree saying it has not always existed but it did not have to come into existence.I asked you to explain how that was possible.Instead of answering yourself you proposed Hawking's explanation. I know what his explanation I was asking for your explanation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Did I mention time as you and I know it?If I did I am sorry as I have not been talking about time as we know it. Time as we know it only exists inside the universe.The only kind of time that can exist outside the universe would be imaginary time or eternal time.String theory, brane theory and bounce theory would require eternal time.I am still convinced that the universe existing today and Hawking and Peebles saying it had a beginning is the best evidence for creation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Would T=0 qualify as locally? or T=10^-43 ? I will review my notes later and see why I came to those conclusions.
Church in 45 minutes.I notice you did not mention the bounce theory as that is a given. I do remember you saying that you skipped the standard theory and went to the Hawking Hartle no boundary theory.I still haven't figured out where the imaginary time or the point could exist as there would have been an absence of any thing. Because every thing, time, space, gravity, matter and energy are all part of the universe.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The oscillatory universe has many big crunches each followed by a bounce and expansion.The cyclic model has a universe exploding into existence many times.One new cyclic model is a brane cosmology model of the creation of the universe.The central idea is that the visible, four-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk".Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology motivated by, but not exclusively derived from, superstring theory and M-theory.Brane cosmology - Wikipedia I agree.There has always been some thing.But if the universe had a beginning that is the best evidence for creation.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."