Before the Big Bang

Time is merely a sequence ov events in a universe where every material event is predetermined. The universe cannot alter its course of relentless decay, neither was it capable of creating itself. Time is a concept entirely linked to the universe; beyond it is a meaningless concept.
The silent Big Bang was a sudden emergence of an unfathomable quantity of energy which is on an unalterable course of dilution only to end as a vast dark void where no more events take place. This process cannot be altered without the intervention of something as powerful as that which caused the Big Bang in the first place.
The universe is nothing but energy in various forms (matter, radiation). And what is energy? An invisible, abstract principle.
I might add a thought on evolution of life in its various forms on Earth. It is perfectly clear that there has not been anywhere near enough time on Earth for these complex life forms to evolve through random events.
This is described in my recent book "Oh My God: Entropy" (PublishAmerica).
I cannot say that Creationists are right, but I can say that Evolutionists are not.

I think you are making a mistake here in your logic. Before selection can take place, the species must have evolved, don't you agree?

Natural selection occurs between more or less adapted species. The evelved species that are best adapted to their ever changing environment survive, those less well adapted become extinct. For this selection to occur, the species must have evolved, or come into existence, first. Thus your argument does in no way impact on my statement - there simply has not been enough time for the evolution of species through random events.
I hope that is clearer?

---

Mihkel

I agree, this is definitely off topic - I only added this as an afterthought to my main message. Incidentally, how on Earth do you think the first single cell organisms came about through natural selection 3.8 billion years ago, just as water formed and made life possible at all? Selection between what? There was nothing to selct from.

---

Mihkel

Speaking through my hat? UI can see that you have applied little thought to the problem. You list a few names as examples of the fact that we know nothing about the chances of instantaneous emergence of an extremely complicated life form the moment water existed 3.8 billion years ago. The late Fred Hoyle stated that this sudden emergence of life was as likely as a tornado ripping through a junkyard would produce a perfect jetliner. Francis Crick admitted that science could not explain it and proposed directed panspermia (the deliberate planting of life on Earth) as the only solution. I for one will not argue with these giants of science.
The funny thing is that having made the admission, science proceeds as though nothing had been discovered.

There was nothing to select from for the simple reason that as the first life form emerged there were by definition no previous life forms to select from.Yes, the hypothesis of random combinations of amino acids forming proteins, then cells, etc. was alive and well until the discovery of 3.8 billion year old fossils. The likelihood of such random events producing life so sophisticated that it carried the enormously complex genome on which all further evolution is based is nil.

---

Mihkel

OK, we disagree. No sense wasting time in this forum. I respect your views and hold on to mine.

---

Mihkel

Explain what you mean by dodging, please.
otherwise, I totally agree, there is only one truth.

---

Mihkel

No, it is not based on my prejudices but rather the relevant literature - and the statistics of random events/mutations.

---

Mihkel

And based on what authority can you assert that they were wrong?

---

Mihkel

Would you believe, I didn't do the calculations.

---

Mihkel

I asked you on what authority you made your sweeping statements.
You disqualified my statements on the basis that I quoted authorities in the field. Do I detect the same in you?

---

Mihkel

Can a fact be an untruth?

---

Mihkel

There again, you believe too much. Before you know something, it is necessary to find out for yourself. Borrowed opinions are not reliable.

---

Mihkel

That is all very well. You dodge my question: On what (personal) authority do you make your statements?

---

Mihkel