Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 113 of 687 (520921)
08-25-2009 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
08-24-2009 6:37 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
The universe has existed for all of time. Does that answer your question?
No because time as we know it is a property of the universe.
What is it that I have been told many time. Oh there is 'no thing' outside of the universe. It is self contained.
An infinite universe would exist in all directions for infinity.
It would be eternal never having to begin to exist or cease to exist.
Science says this is impossible.
Straggler writes:
Where?
This Is what is posted on Cambridge Cosmology.
Expansion of the Universe
The Universe began about ten billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase. The fact that galaxies are receding from us in all directions is a consequence of this initial explosion and was first discovered observationally by Hubble. There is now excellent evidence for Hubble's law which states that the recessional velocity v of a galaxy is proportional to its distance d from us, that is, v=Hd where H is Hubble's constant. Projecting galaxy trajectories backwards in time means that they converge to a high density state - the initial fireball.
No webpage found at provided URL: This comes from a website prepares for Physics 303 web site.
Though an arguably irrelevant question, "what happened before the big bang?" is one question that many scientists have attempted to answer in the last 20 years, while trying to determine how the universe was created.
A consequence of the universe expansion discovery was reformation of universe-creation theories. If you go back in time and reverse the expansion, you will find that the galaxies move closer together, and the universe becomes smaller, hotter, and more dense. If you go back in time far enough, you will find that all the galaxies, and in fact, all of the matter in the universe, is compacted into a small, infinitely hot and dense point called a singularity.
Singularity does not exist as it is only inoperable math.
Here Alan Guth says the universe began from nothing. Play A beginning from nothing, and a need for a beginning.
He also says if you follow eternal inflation backward far enough you would find a beginning. He then says we need a theory to find how that beginning took place.
Here we find:
The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe.
You don't seem to like my Hawking quote concerning the universe has not always existed but had a beginning about 15 billion years ago.
So I thought I would get you a new one.
Here Hawking says:
quote:
if general relativity is combined with quantum theory, it may be possible to predict how the universe would start.
Straggler writes:
ICANT writes:
The universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is only 15 billion or so years.
Exactly.
Since this quote is not from Here could you supply the source.
Is this where I ask you a question: Are you saying the universe never began to exist but it has existed forever, but forever is on 15 billion or so years?
And you are agreeing that is exactly what you were saying.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2009 6:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 9:10 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 115 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 9:31 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 12:53 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 121 of 687 (521048)
08-25-2009 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 9:10 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes:
I think you are misinterpreting Alan Guth's views.
I think he was misrepresenting his beliefs.
I was just going by his final answers to the questions.
Theodoric writes:
Guth does believe that the universe came from something.
Then you have never read his paper on the zero energy inflationary universe.
Guth was answering questions concerning the standard BBT. He hedged then answered along the accepted party line.
The problem with Guth's zero energy universe beginning it needs a vacuum to begin in. So he needs prior universes or at least places where a vacuum can exist. That is why he loves string theory.
But all of this is metaphysics not science.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 9:10 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 5:13 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 122 of 687 (521053)
08-25-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Sasuke
08-25-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes:
you need to remember that there are a lot of scientific views out there just like there are a lot of religious views out there. The point with science is that it is built around observations that can be tested and verified not revelations that can't be verified and tested.
Yes there are a lot of scientific musings out there. They are called metaphysics.
There is one Standard Big Bang Theory.
This theory trys to explain what has happened from the time the universe began to expand.
It does not address anything about creation.
But GR that breaks down at a singularity requires that the universe have a beginning.
There are no observations available nor anything that can be tested or verified prior to
T=10-43.
Sasuke writes:
Hey icant here is a movie that sorta reflects my views in one way or another...
Neat metaphysics.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 9:31 AM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 4:07 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 127 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:10 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 123 of 687 (521059)
08-25-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
08-25-2009 12:53 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Well it seems you have learnt something over the past couple of years. But you seem to be implying that there is some sort of "time" that is not "as we know it". Or am I reading too much into your phraseology here?
Did the universe begin to exist 13.7 billion years ago?
I am still leaning to the universe having always existed in some form. If it has always existed it had to exist in an eternal now which it still does and will continue to exist in.
Straggler writes:
If for the sake of argument you want to call T=0 a "beginning" then I'll go along with that if it will make you happy
You sound like a bunch of preachers I know. Go along to get along.
But that will not get the answers to the questions.
Is the universe infinite/eternal/always existed?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?
Straggler writes:
Why exactly do you think that this precludes the universe from being "just is"? Somewhere down whatever causal chain you go there has to be something that "just is" (i.e. is uncaused). Why cannot the Universe be it?
The universe can be "just is". But that means it has to be infinite in all directions. When you date it as 13.7 billion years old it becomes finite. That requires a begining to exist.
I agree that eventually you get to an uncaused existence, that is responsible for all existence.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 12:53 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by hooah212002, posted 08-25-2009 4:10 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 4:15 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 129 by Sasuke, posted 08-25-2009 5:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 132 of 687 (521100)
08-25-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rahvin
08-25-2009 8:04 PM


I got a really dumb question
Hi Rahvin,
I got a really dumb question.
Rahvin writes:
The singularity is not an object. It's a mathematical conundrum, a place where our current understanding of physics is incapable of making accurate predictions.
GR can't tell us nothing because the math breaks down
The Singularity is not an object just math that don't work.
What tells us the universe is there?
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 08-25-2009 8:04 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 10:14 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 144 of 687 (521156)
08-26-2009 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Theodoric
08-25-2009 5:13 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes:
So you are going to claim he doesnt believe what he says he believes? WOW.
No I am saying he is a hypocrite because he does not say what he believes. He says what the party line is while believing something entirely different.
Theodoric writes:
Then he doesn't believe it came from nothing. You say so yourself.
Just because I say he needs something does not mean he believes he need something.
Theodoric writes:
Have you?
Yes, Straggler brought it up a long time ago and we discussed how the universe is a free lunch, energy and matter is created with the energy remaining zero in the universe. So the universe or universes are created from nothing, for free.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 08-25-2009 5:13 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Modulous, posted 08-26-2009 9:45 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2009 10:04 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2009 10:31 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 150 of 687 (521188)
08-26-2009 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Minnemooseus
08-24-2009 1:53 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi Moose,
I am sorry you were not satisfied with the answers I gave Here to your questions in This
1. My opinion on the age of the universe.
quote:
This presents a problem for me that has not been resolved to my satisfaction yet
My personal opinion is that the universe has always existed eternally in some form.
I know it has existed this once.
I believe it will exist in a different form in the future.
I believe it is very possible to have existed in the form we now see it trillions of times prior to what we see now.
Therefore I believe the universe began to exist as we know it from energy that has always existed eternally.
How long ago did the present universe as we see it today begin to exist is what I think you are asking?
The answer to that is I don't know.
Science tells me it is anywhere from 8 billion years old to 20 billion years old depending on whose numbers you use.
When the new telescope is deployed in 2014 and stars are seen that are 500 billion light years away I have a feeling those numbers will change. I could be mistaken.
2. My opinion on the age of the earth.
The earth has always eternally existed in some form.
2a. How long has it existed in its present form?
I don't know.
I only know what science says.
3. My opinion on the age of the first life on earth.
3a. There is not a number big enough to desiginate when I believe the first life to be on earth.
4. My opinion on the first human life on this earth
The first life on the present earth began during the light period that is found in Genesis 1:1 which the account/history of is given in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
This life began billions of years ago.
This life ceased to exist prior to the evening found in Genesis 1:2.
The present life on the earth began to exist some 6000 years ago when God did a restoration of the earth.
Calling vegetation from the seed in the ground. Calling animals from the ground to appear after their kind. Creating water creatures. Creating mankind in His image.
4a. Modern man began to exist some 6000 years ago when God created man in His image/likeness.
5. My opinion on the modern great apes (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans haveing a common ancestor?
The only thing any living creatures have in common is their Creator and many of the things He created them from.
I am glad you only asked for my opinion.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-24-2009 1:53 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:03 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 151 of 687 (521189)
08-26-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Theodoric
08-26-2009 10:04 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes:
Well that cinches it. I will not be debating you any more.
It is kinda hard to cease doing something that you never began to do isn't it?
I have given you my opinions on things.
You gave your opinion on things.
Then you told me how my opinions are wrong.
That is not debating that is preaching.
Debating is where you take a subject. Pick a position. Then affirm and defend that position.
At least that is what I was taught in school.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2009 10:04 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 156 of 687 (521198)
08-26-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Straggler
08-26-2009 10:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler, Thanks,
Straggler writes:
Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here:
We had talked about it in an earlier thread and you started this particular thread.
But you did not reference Guth's information of a zero energy universe.
Guth's paper was on Chambridge Cosmology Site but since they started revamping it I have not been able to find several things that was there before. Hopefully they will get everything back in the future.
There is only one section of Inflation with information in it. That is the Low density inflationary universes. Everything else is missing its information.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2009 10:31 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2009 3:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 157 of 687 (521208)
08-26-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
08-26-2009 12:03 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi Perdition,
The article I read was on that was linked from a NASA report on the completed mission or repair to Hubble.
There was no mention of a name for the telescope just that it would be much better than Hubble even with the capability to see 500 billion light years, where Hubble can see only 20 billion light years.
As far as I know it may all be fantasy.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:03 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 159 of 687 (521220)
08-26-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 1:41 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi hooah,
Get off that hight horse and read my posts or don't comment.
I said it was a report linked to NASA'S report.
That ain't saying NASA said anything.
And yes I read the article you referenced.
Now how old is the universe?
If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 1:41 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 2:33 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 161 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 2:43 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 165 of 687 (521278)
08-26-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
08-25-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,
I thought we had already hashed this to death is the reason I had not answered it.
Straggler writes:
It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption?
You believe the universe has lasted for all of time.
Time is a property of the universe.
Time has lasted just as long as the universe.
Sounds kinda circular to me.
Since you have no intention of answering the questions I proposed.
Which one existed first? Time or the Universe.
If either began to exist they both began to exist, simotaniously.
Therefore one can not exist without the other existing.
But the universe "just is" then it exists. If the universe exists time exists.
Straggler writes:
On what do you base this implicit assumption?
'No Thing' can only produce 'No Thing'
If there is 'No Thing', and I am told there is 'No Thing' outside of the universe.
Either the universe is infinite in all directions.
OR
The universe began to exist.
Guth's paper you referenced Here says:
quote:
At the first level, I would argue that the answer to the question is yes, the universe had a beginning in the event that is usually referred to as the big bang.
He goes with 99.9% of the people working in scientific cosmology holding that view.
Then he begins a discussion of the second level which is inflation.
On page 13 he says:
quote:
For the explicit constructions of eternally inflating models, the answer is clear. Such models start with a state in which there are no pocket universes at all, just pure repulsivegravity
material filling space. So there is definitely a beginning to the models that we know how to construct.
Pure repulsivegravity material filling space is necessary for eternal inflating universe to begin.
But if gravity and space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe, we are on a merry go round.
quote:
At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning.
So can you clear this mess up for me?
Is the universe infinite in all directions?
OR
Did the universe begin to exist?
Straggler writes:
Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?
If it had been expanding for infinity everything in it would be dead that is the prediction for it's demise.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 4:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:31 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 167 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 6:06 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 168 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 6:16 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2009 3:22 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 169 of 687 (521429)
08-27-2009 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by cavediver
08-27-2009 3:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
For the millionth time, possibly neither.
Then what is the alternative?
Because the universe exists today.
cavediver writes:
At what point on a beach ball does the ball begin?
The seam.
Now if you want to know how it came to exist it began to exist in a factory where it was made.
Since you love this analogy so much explain how it can represent expansion of the universe.
The Universe began about ten billion years ago in a violent explosion; every particle started rushing apart from every other particle in an early super-dense phase. The fact that galaxies are receding from us in all directions is a consequence of this initial explosion and was first discovered observationally by Hubble.
This statement found Here says every partical began rushing apart from every other particle.
Now lets take your beach ball and fill it with marbles.
Let the marbles represent the particles.
Let the beach ball represent the less than pea sized universe that exists at T=10-43 .
Lets assume the beach ball was small and you would have 21 marble's on any line you took that went through the center of the ball.
Expansion says each of those marbles was separated as space began to grow between each marble.
Somewhere in that beach ball is a marble that is the center marble it can never move as the space is simply growing between the marbles.
To demonstrate lets take 21 marble's and place them on a table take a bunch of 1" blocks and place one between each of the marble's.
Lets assume the marble's are 1/2" in diameter.
When we started out the two marble's on the outside was 9 1/2" apart.
Those same marble's are now 29 1/2" apart yet no marble has moved only the space got larger between the marble's.
Your beach ball that started out 10 1/2" in diameter is now 30 1/2" in diameter.
That means if you were the center marble the outside marble's are moving away from you 9 times as fast as your nearest neighbor in any direction.
This also means that none of those marble's could ever run into each other.
It also means that the outside marble's do not have neighbors in all directions.
Since I am giving my opinion on creation I though I would give my opinion on expansion.
Now if the quote from Cambridge is incorrect please correct it.
If my understanding of it saying space grew between each particle is wrong, please explain what I missed.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:31 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 1:54 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 3:04 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 170 of 687 (521432)
08-27-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Sasuke
08-27-2009 6:06 AM


Re:Math
Hi Sasuke,
Sasuke writes:
If you don't understand that there is a current mathematical impossibility in relation to that question than you will never be able to understand how complicated that issue is..
I know that math is an invention of man, and when he tries to use it to prove the unknown he runs into trouble.
So yes I understand that the math will never explain how or why the universe began to exist. It will not explain how time, space or anything else began to exist. Math breaks down at the singularity and becomes a silent mute saying nothing.
At that point everything becomes metaphysics or spiritual.
In other words you believe something because you choose too. Not because you have physical evidence.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 6:06 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by hooah212002, posted 08-27-2009 1:29 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 173 of 687 (521452)
08-27-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by greyseal
08-27-2009 6:16 AM


Re:really really
Hi greyseal,
As I don't remember welcoming you to EvC, Welcome.
greyseal writes:
The best working theory (and this is a scientific theory, not the laymans theory, do NOT get them mixed up on purpose) tells us the universe is 13 billion years old (or so) and started as an infinitesimally small speck which exploded into everything (and yes, I am very willing to admit my laymans explanation is inadequate and possibly wrong in important places).
You are referring to the Standard BBT which is made up of several hypothesis.
In this thread I have been trying to obtain the scientific evidence of the facts of where that infinitesimally small speck got it's existence from.
I was told in another thread science had proven that the Genesis account of creation was fiction/false.
So I started this thread in search of the scientific evidence that would prove Genesis 1:1 false.
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
BBT says, the universe began to expand and produced what we see today.
So the BBT does not address how the universe existed or began to expand.
greyseal writes:
The thing is, the facts point to this.
The fact is the BBT theory is man's attempt to explain how God created the heaven and the earth as declared in Genesis 1:1.
It is not trying to explain how the universe began to exist.
greyseal writes:
Where are your facts? Don't point to a book,
Fact 1 the universe exists.
Fact 2 expansion of the universe proves the universe is not infinite in all directions. If it was infinite into the past everything would have expended all energy and the universe would be dark, cold, and dead. It does declare it to be infinite going forward.
Fact 3 If the universe is not infinite in all directions it had to begin to exist.
Fact 4 The book you don't like says God created the heaven and the earth.
Fact 4a Science has no evidence and says nothing of how the universe began to exist. Why do you think everyone wants to say it "just is"? This would come under metaphysics. Which is the only thing Science can put forth as to how the universe began to exist, which carries no more weight than me saying God created the heaven and the earth.
Fact 5 That same book predicted that the universe was expanding over 2700 years ago.
Fact 6 The CMBR confirms that prediction.
Fact 7 Since it was stretched out the observations that the universe is lumpy confirms that stretching.
Now this is just my opinion of creation that I am giving.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 6:16 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 4:28 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024