ICANT'S position in the creation debate

The jury is still very much out. The classic Big Bang model has three scenarios: closed, flat, and open. The latter two are both infinite and were long seen as the strongest contenders, despite all popular depictions of the Big Bang portraying the closed scenario, mainly because it is much simpler to present.So when we talk about the singularity being this infinitely small point, we're lying It is quite possibly infinite in extent (strictly, this doesn't make sense as you cannot define a length measure at the singularity, but at any infinitessimal moment after T=0, the Universe is infinite in extent, so it is sort of sensible to describe the singularity as also being infinite.Because the Universe is so close to flat, the matter density is very close to critical, which means that as our estimates vary, our view on whether the Universe is finite or infinite tends to swing back and forth.

I knew this part, and it always seemed interesting to me that the mass of the universe was so close to this critical amount, perhaps there's a reason for that? I must have misunderstood this when I first heard it. I had thought open meant the universe would continue to expand forever because the mass of the universe was not enough to cause it to collapse again, flat was where the mass was perfectly able to slow the expansion, but it would still never end up in a "Big Crunch" because the amount of time needed to reach that scenario was infinite, and closed was where the mass was over that critical mass and the universe's expansion would reverse and collapse.Of course, this was before dark energy was "discovered" (I think) so the ideas may have changed drastically, but I always assumed the universe was finite in all three scenarios, the difference being if/when it would collapse back on itself.

That's not quite what I mean by inifinite. When I say infinite, I mean there is no volume value. Even if we can never circumnavigate the universe due to time constraints or the expansion rate, that doesn't mean there isn't a finite value for the volume.

Hi Perdition, You say time and duration are the same.The dictionary does not agree.The dictionary using the Physics def. says, time is a quantity measuring duration.Time - definition of time by The Free Dictionary
time
Noun
1. the past, present, and future regarded as a continuous whole Related adjective temporal
2. Physics a quantity measuring duration, measured with reference to the rotation of the earth or from the vibrations of certain atomsTime tells me the duration of an event.Time is not physical.Time is a tool invented by man to be able to measure duration. A sphere is an object. Are you sure it has length?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."

Yes...it has a radius, a diameter, a circumference...all of those things fall under the banner of length as used in the argument. I suppose a better way to characterize length, width, height, etc is size. Technically, I guess you're right, but when people speak about time in this type of argument, they typically mean duration (which, by the way, also isn't physical), change, and or motion...or the penomenon that allows those things to have meaning.

Its called the diameter. That's one way to define it. Its also a property of the Universe, itself. You shouldn't equivocate.

Hi Perdition, I know it has a radius, a diameter and a circumference. And you can find that information all over the internet.But you can't find out how to find the length of a sphere. Duration is just as physical as length. Duration exists, it is existence. Without existence to be measured there is no time.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."

Hi CSLong time no see. Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe?If so I would like to see it.I want scientific evidence not somebody said so.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."

To spout your favorite equivocation back at you...is it made of particles or waves? Length is a catch-all term indicating a definite size. And, even if you want to be literal and pedantic, you could put a sphere on a piece of paper and slide a pencil so that it is tangential to the side of the sphere and perpendicular to the paper and make a dot, then go 180 degrees around the sphere and do the same thing and make another dot and then connect the dots with a straight line...this would be the length of the sphere...and guess what, it's the same as the diameter.

How can I show you scientific evidence that somebody did not say?You'll deny anything scientific that goes against your pet theory anyway and glorify any psuedo-science that supports it. Plus, you use Hawking's "say so" when it suits your pet theory and deny others' when it doesn't.Sorry ICANT, but I don't want to play your game.

Hi CS Just as I thought none exists.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're too much.FYI, it does exist and you're not smart enough to understand it. Just so you know.

Much like the evidence for "eternal infinity" huh?Yet you are very willing to spout that conclusion as the answer to life the universe and everything. If ever you get past your philosophical bias and are willing to look at actual physical evidence and the answers this might suggest let us know.

Relativity works. By assuming that time is a property of the universe (or more precisely 'spacetime'), we have GPS.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I personally have no objection to that. This tells me you are agnostic about whether God is behind the ultimate universe origin. Regardless if such is true, such is my position.The mainstream creationist position is that of YAC/YEC (young age creationist/young Earth creationist). You apparently are outside of that mainstream.I ask the questions I did because I wanted to clarify what if any your objections were to the mainstream scientific positions.The age of the universe? — Mainstream science has it that the universe as we know it is about 13.5 billion years old. My interpretation is that such DOES NOT conflict with your eternal universe position — The 13.5 billion year universe could be the current version of your larger eternal universe. Again, I personally have no conflict with such a position.The age of the Earth? — Mainstream science has it that the Earth as we know it is about 4.5 billion years old. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that?The age of the first life on Earth? — Mainstream science has it that life on Earth goes back 3+ billion years. Does your position conflict with that or are you willing to accept that?The age of the first human (Homo sapiens)? — Mainstream science has it that the Homo sapiens species goes back many 1000’s of years (I don’t offhand have a good number). Anyway, this is far outside the mainstream YAC/YEC timeframe of 5 to 10 thousand years. Does your position conflict with that many 1000’s of years timeframe or are you willing to accept that?Do the modern great ages (gorillas, chimps) and modern humans have a common ancestor? — Mainstream science has it that such is the case. Mainstream creationist position is that humanity was God’s special creation and that the great apes of man have no common ancestor. Do you agree or disagree with the mainstream science position? Mainstream creationist position is that the Noahtic flood was a literal event and that it was a sort of a modification or re-creation event. Mainstream science finds that such a flood never happened. What is your position concerning such a flood?Moose