Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
The subtitle goes back to my message 4, which you pretty much totally dodged. Therefore I repeat message 4:
What is you opinion on:
The age of the universe?
The age of the Earth?
The age of the first life on Earth?
The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)?
Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor?
These are core questions in the creationism/evolution debate. Give me some sort of specific answers to each, even an "I don't know". Dodge the questions and I'll just write you off as being irrelevant in any scientific discussion of the universes history.
No I did not. If you're claiming that "Science has no evidence concerning how the universe began to exist." or that "Science has no evidence of how life began to exist." that is a suggestion.
In 2 1/2 years at EvC no one has ever presented any evidence of facts of how the universe or life began to exist.
The scientific answer is "we don't know".
The big bang model explains how the universe COULD have expanded. It also suggest that the universe has always existed. Why would there HAVE to be a begining? And if there was, even if the BB model is wrong, why does it result to GOD DID IT? How about, where did GOD come from? I assume you are going to say GOD has always existed but U have no evidence.... It is utterly a W.A.G.... Atleast with the BB model we understand more and it is based on EVIDENCE.. Do I need to repeat some of that evidence? redshift, mbr...
Well the universe existed before expansion began
Says you! Follow the evidence. Not historical claims.
All the redshift and the mbr prove is that the Word of God is correct when over 2700 years ago it said:
There is no such thing as proof in relation to argument and more specifically evc arguments. I always find it funny when religious fanatics fail to see that point. Just because the BIBLE says it, does not mean it is TRUE.. Revelations are not enough to conclude that it is from GOD either so dont bring that hogwash up..
The universe is expanding. So what? That fact has been in print for over 2700 years. Scientist could have saved a lot of money by reading the Word of God.
The word of GOD is a claim, even depending on which religion u study, however, scientists actually study what is going on by observation.
Why should I trust that the BIBLE is a divine book? What makes it any more divine than any other cultures thoughts on divinty? Have you ever studied history? Why is it that per culture there is a different divinity? Even within the same culture there is confusion on divinity? If GOD were REAL why would it choose confusion over clarity?
"It would be eternal never having to begin to exist or cease to exist."
False. Take math for example, start counting, where do you start counting? now tell me when you have reached the last number.
You also said:
"In fact the claim is that it began to exist but will never cease to exist."
False. The claim is that the universe has always existed.
As for the rest of your post, you're stuck on "In the begining".. The issue is, there could have never been a begining.. OPEN YOUR MIND..
Oh and the 13.7 billion years in terms of time is relative to the begining of time, when things started to break down, when the first ATOM was formed. Before there was time, if there was such a thing, there could have been space still, just nothing existing in that space so chemical reactions could not occur, so we could not measure it in the form of time... Atleast in our form of TIME... I think that is where u are getting confused... Remember the word "time" is a symbolic word/ or tool used for measuring. Man created the word TIME and its defintion, its definition could change some day.. OPEN YOUR MIND...
I don't think he is catching that our universe could have existed before time and that time is a product of our universe.
ICANT has a history of being completely unable to comprehend a finite but unbounded dimension. We've been over the issue with him many times as to the actual nature of time, and what it means when discussing "beginnings" and "causes." He continues to insist that, if the Universe has a "beginning," it must also have a "cause," as if the notion of a preceding event has any meaning when discussing an absolute minimum value for time. As we've said to him many times, it's like asking what's farther North than the North Pole.
He also likes to compare "eternity" to Hawking's imaginary time, an additional timelike dimension that I don't completely understand (and neither does ICANT - the difference is that i admit it ).
Our resident physicists, cavediver and Son Goku (cavediver at least having actually taught cosmology at the University level, so he knows what he's talking about), have even tried to help ICANT understand. And failed. Repeatedly.
The problem is that ICANT isn't looking to understand facts or scientific models. He already "knows" the Truth. He's looking for similarities from science to support his preconceived position. If it sounds like it supports what he already believes, he'll jump on it - even if the actual theory doesn't even remotely resemble what he thinks it says on the surface. That which outright disagrees with his pet model...well, he has faith that "someday" we'll figure it our, and he'll have been right all along.
have you ever touched a single proton, neutron or electron? Have you actually seen one without the aid of a tool?
Just so you know, I am only arguing this point because of your absolute sense on the notion that there is no tooth fairy..LOL.. My parents were my tooth fairy.. .. a long time ago.. lol.. ---- Oh, I have never taken a philosophy lesson cept for the derails in other courses but thanks for the compliment. ----
Oh and your comment "MAKE SURE THE JAR IS RIGHT SIDE UP."
What is right side up? Are you the only normal person? Or is it that there is an average type that makes defines normality? LOL.. What if those schezpfrenick people are telling the truth...? Besides in science it takes a lot of ODD ideas to get a good theory.. I could go back to when they thought the earth was flat, or even prior to darwin and his idea of evolution... Or perhaps einstein and his idea of e = mc2...