There is only 2 options, Life formed because of God, or by random chance from non-living matter

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-21T10:26:53-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, to your claim that it takes 250,000 books to explain what you claim we know from 31 words in the Bible. It's just an asinine claim all around.

The Bible is infinite. So all the books in the world could not explain even one word in Genesis 1.

John 21 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-21T10:27:45-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
The Bible is infinite. So all the books in the world could not explain even one word in Genesis 1.

John 21 25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

That's just pointless rhetoric from you.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-21T11:27:37-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
There is no fixed ratio between time flow and cosmic expansion, but the two are connected. As the universe expands, the geometry of spacetime changes, and that affects how time flows in different regions.

Time doesn't "flow" differently in different regions.

Firstlightdawn said:
Expansion may be uniform overall, which means there is no single constant rate.

That's not what uniform expansion means. It means that the whole of the universe is expanding at the same rate at the same time. No part of space is expanding slower or faster.

Firstlightdawn said:
That’s why cosmology often uses averages from the beginning of time up to the present moment.

Cosmology doesn't use time averages of that sort.

Firstlightdawn said:
I use the Planck unit because it’s the smallest scale where the laws of physics still apply.

Where have you use d the Planck unit?

Firstlightdawn said:
This approach is the only one I’ve found that brings the structure of Genesis chapter one into alignment with modern science. Others may disagree, but no one else has offered a working model, and this framework resolves the issue in a consistent way.

If all you have is Schroeder's numerology, then you certainly haven't. There is also no reason to expect an ancient Near Eastern cosmology to match reality. They just didn't have the right information. (No one did until about 100 years ago.)

Firstlightdawn said:
The days in Genesis can not be the same length. This is not consistant with what we know about the age of the universe and the expansion of the universe. Even if people think there is no connection between age and the rate of expansion.

There is no plausible connection between Genesis and actual cosmology.

Firstlightdawn said:
Time is passing and the universe is expanding.

Finally you got something right.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-21T11:41:49-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
But do you agree that the word Beginning is the first word in our Hebrew Bible.

I assumed it would be a Hebrew word, but I really don't care because I was talking about the beginning of the Universe, not the bible. We don't know if the moment of the Big Bang represents the beginning of the Universe, or just the beginning of the expansion of a pre-existing universe.

Firstlightdawn said:
I could agree with you if you were to say we do not know what the word means or how to define the first word.

So you do agree that time, space and energy (matter) are all one

No. Those three items are certainly not the same.

Firstlightdawn said:
and you cannot have one without the other. Even you do go a step further to say there could be an exact ratio that is consistant between them.

I really don't what you are talking about.

Firstlightdawn said:
What dictionary do you want to use to determine the meaning of these words?

I'm not interested in word games.

Firstlightdawn said:
God gave us a Bible, so He must have given us something that we are able to understand.

It was written by people who didn't realize the Earth was spherical. I'm not really bothered that it doesn't match reality.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-21T13:16:14-0600

Hans Blaster said:
I assumed it would be a Hebrew word, but I really don't care because I was talking about the beginning of the Universe, not the bible. We don't know if the moment of the Big Bang represents the beginning of the Universe, or just the beginning of the expansion of a pre-existing universe.

I JUST explained that to you. A Planck is considered the smallest, observable, or "meaningful" distance in physics, beyond which our current understanding of spacetime breaks down. Creation and Universe are the exact same thing. One is a Bible word, the other a word that Science uses. The beginning is the universe expanding. So we can only go back so far and then we do not have the ability to observe. Remember space, time and the physical universe are all one. You can not have one without the other,

I am sure this is going to seem silly to you but Adam was told to NAME the animals. But to do that you have to observe, distinguish and then you can assign a name. This is what Science does. What Adam was commanded to do. INteresting Genesis says that God saw. Does God have eyes can he really see what you are doing. Does He know? Everyone is pretty sure that God knows everything there is to know.

I do believe in the Big Crunch. That this universe will shrink back down and return to where it came from. LIfe is a cycle. As we get older we start to see and recongnize all the different stages in the cycles we go through. There is a book on that. Passages by Gail Sheehy (1976)

Hans Blaster said:
No. Those three items are certainly not the same.

Science does not say they are the same. You just can not have one without the other. All of this has to do with the beginning. What you call the big bang. Something people are interested in. There was even a program on TV called the Big Bang, that introduced people to Physics on this level.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-21T13:31:13-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Time doesn't "flow" differently in different regions.

Good, so you do have a concept of what time is.

Hans Blaster said:
It means that the whole of the universe is expanding at the same rate at the same time.

Ok, that is good to know. Every little bit counts.

Hans Blaster said:
Cosmology doesn't use time averages of that sort.

I do, I am a theistic evolutionist. There are a few of us around but not a lot. This is more common with the Hasidic and other conservative Rabbi. In Hasidic they call me מְקֻרָב מִן הָאוּמּוֹת mekurav min ha‑umot “one who is drawn close from among the nations.” Of course that means nothing to you. I am three in one. Christian, Theistic Evolutionist and a follow of the Hasidic teaching. The HAsidic are theistic evolutionists going back 1,000 years. One example is

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon — the Rambam (Maimonides) (1138–1204)

the universe has order
nature follows laws
studying nature reveals God’s wisdom
faith and reason are not enemies
truth cannot contradict truth

We learn about God though Creation or the Universe and people are without excuse because God reveils Himself to everyone. The Universe gives a witness and testimony for God. This actually goes back to Abraham 3,000 years ago. There are many well known teachers that explain all of this.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-21T13:35:31-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
That's just pointless rhetoric from you.

You MISSED the point. WE could write many, many, many books.
But most people are happy just to have a few spoons of food.
So we try not to ramble on about things that do not interest them

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-02-21T13:39:52-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
You MISSED the point. WE could write many, many, many books.
But most people are happy just to have a few spoons of food.
So we try not to ramble on about things that do not interest them

If that's your point, then it was INCREDIBLY poorly done and also not what your comment showed at all.

No, the Bible doesn't explain everything in existence because it was written by men who didn't know everything. They were Bronze Age Middle Eastern men, which severely limited their view on the world in many, many, MANY ways.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-21T14:29:47-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
I JUST explained that to you. A Planck is considered the smallest, observable, or "meaningful" distance in physics, beyond which our current understanding of spacetime breaks down.

"A Planck"? "Max" is "a Planck" (the only one I can think of). From your description of "a Planck" it is clear you mean "the Planck Length". You should not use terms you do not understand.

Firstlightdawn said:
Creation and Universe are the exact same thing. One is a Bible word, the other a word that Science uses.

Don't care.

Firstlightdawn said:
The beginning is the universe expanding. So we can only go back so far and then we do not have the ability to observe.

Hence why I don't pretend to know what happened before that. Is it a beginning, or not. Don't know. No one does.

Firstlightdawn said:
Remember space, time and the physical universe are all one. You can not have one without the other,

You are so confused.

Firstlightdawn said:
I am sure this is going to seem silly to you but Adam was told to NAME the animals. But to do that you have to observe, distinguish and then you can assign a name. This is what Science does. What Adam was commanded to do. INteresting Genesis says that God saw. Does God have eyes can he really see what you are doing. Does He know? Everyone is pretty sure that God knows everything there is to know.

I really don't care.

Firstlightdawn said:
I do believe in the Big Crunch. That this universe will shrink back down and return to where it came from.

Got any evidence of that?

Firstlightdawn said:
LIfe is a cycle. As we get older we start to see and recongnize all the different stages in the cycles we go through. There is a book on that. Passages by Gail Sheehy (1976)

Not the same thing. SMH.

Firstlightdawn said:
Science does not say they are the same.

That's what I said.

Firstlightdawn said:
You just can not have one without the other. All of this has to do with the beginning. What you call the big bang. Something people are interested in.

Firstlightdawn said:
There was even a program on TV called the Big Bang, that introduced people to Physics on this level.

It was a sitcom. It wasn't very educational.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-21T18:00:16-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Hence why I don't pretend to know what happened before that. Is it a beginning, or not. Don't know. No one does.

Actually, I do know. For now, I will just say that God is a singularity. He is pure. Before time, there was no time. All the obvious stuff that we know about God.

Hans Blaster said:
You are so confused.

Again, you are always guilty of what you accuse others of.

Hans Blaster said:
Got any evidence of that?

What counts as “evidence”?

Tinker Grey · 2026-02-21T18:04:18-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
What counts as “evidence”?

How about you provide what you got and we'll discuss whether it counts.

Belk · 2026-02-21T18:14:53-0600

weary2025 said:
You cant create something from nothing. Therefore something had to always exist to create everything. Only God makes sense in that narrative

In string theory,
branes (short for membranes) are fundamental, multi-dimensional objects that can act as the "surfaces" upon which the ends of open strings are attached. They range from 0D points to higher-dimensional sheets. Branes offer a "something from nothing" mechanism for universe formation, where collisions between branes in higher-dimensional space can create matter and energy, potentially explaining the Big Bang.

sjastro · 2026-02-21T19:19:05-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
According to Science
At the beginning of the universe, time, space, and energy come into existence together.
None of the three can exist alone, and none can begin before the others.

They are a single event, not a sequence.

This is news to me.
Since the word Planck has been thrown around in this thread there is another parameter the Planck time 10⁻⁴³s which needs to be considered.
Below this time frame the universe is at a scale where classical spacetime as a smooth 4‑dimensional differentiable manifold defined by a metric to use some maths jargon, no longer exists and theories constructed on classical spacetime such as GR and QFTs breakdown.
A combined theory such as a quantum gravity theory is required where space and time are not necessarily emergent properties.

It is therefore incorrect to state according to science, the universe, time, space, and energy come into existence together when we have cannot even hypothesize what came before 10⁻⁴³s.

Hans Blaster · 2026-02-21T22:08:38-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
Actually, I do know. For now, I will just say that God is a singularity. He is pure. Before time, there was no time. All the obvious stuff that we know about God.

That is a theological position. It is not science in the slightest. It holds zero value to me.

Firstlightdawn said:
Again, you are always guilty of what you accuse others of.

That's not how accusations work.

Firstlightdawn said:
What counts as “evidence”?

Data. We're talking about the Universe, so I'd start with a telescope.

Neogaia777 · 2026-02-21T22:42:55-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It was a sitcom. It wasn't very educational.

Very funny show though. Love that show for it's comedic value, very good for a laugh or two, and laughter is good medicine.

Take Care.

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-22T03:39:17-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It holds zero value to me.

Then why did you ask?

Firstlightdawn · 2026-02-22T03:45:45-0600

sjastro said:
It is therefore incorrect to state according to science, the universe, time, space, and energy come into existence together when we have cannot even hypothesize what came before 10⁻⁴³s.

⭐ **Scientific References That State:

Space, time, matter, and energy begin together in the Big Bang**

Below are the primary scientific sources that explicitly teach this. These are not opinions — these are the standard references used in physics and cosmology.

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time

Hawking states:

“Time itself began at the Big Bang.”

He also explains that space, time, and energy are all part of the same event — the beginning of the universe.

This is one of the most widely cited scientific statements on the subject.

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages

NASA’s cosmology overview states:

“The universe began with the Big Bang — a single event that created space, time, matter, and energy.”

NASA is extremely clear: The Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter, and energy.

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”

SEP is a peer‑reviewed academic reference used by physicists and philosophers.

It states:

“According to the standard Big Bang model, space and time themselves came into existence at the Big Bang.”

This is the academic consensus.

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

Cambridge’s cosmology notes explain:

“The Big Bang is the origin of space‑time.”

And:

“Energy and matter appear as the universe expands and cools.”

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics

Their cosmology introduction states:

“The Big Bang marks the beginning of the universe, including space and time.”

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures

MIT’s cosmology course teaches:

“At t = 0, the universe, space, and time come into existence.”

And:

“Energy density is extremely high at the beginning.”

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing

Krauss (a theoretical physicist) states:

“Space and time themselves arise at the Big Bang.”

He also explains that energy and matter appear as the universe expands.

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures

Carroll (Caltech cosmologist) teaches:

“The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time.”

And:

“Matter and energy appear as the universe evolves from that initial state.”

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos

Greene (Columbia University physicist) writes:

“Space and time came into existence at the Big Bang.”

He also describes how energy and matter emerge as the universe cools.

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model

This is the official model used in physics.

It states:

Space‑time begins at the Big Bang
Energy density is initially extremely high
Matter forms from energy as the universe cools

This is the model used by NASA, ESA, CERN, and every major cosmology department.

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence

Modern cosmology teaches that the universe, space, time, matter, and energy all originate together in the Big Bang — a single event at t = 0.

This is not controversial in physics. It is the standard model taught worldwide.

Neogaia777 · 2026-02-22T04:06:11-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
⭐ **Scientific References That State:
Space, time, matter, and energy begin together in the Big Bang**

Below are the primary scientific sources that explicitly teach this. These are not opinions — these are the standard references used in physics and cosmology.

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time
Hawking states:

He also explains that space, time, and energy are all part of the same event — the beginning of the universe.

This is one of the most widely cited scientific statements on the subject.

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages
NASA’s cosmology overview states:

NASA is extremely clear: The Big Bang is the origin of space, time, matter, and energy.

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”
SEP is a peer‑reviewed academic reference used by physicists and philosophers.

It states:

This is the academic consensus.

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
Cambridge’s cosmology notes explain:

And:

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics
Their cosmology introduction states:

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures
MIT’s cosmology course teaches:

And:

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing
Krauss (a theoretical physicist) states:

He also explains that energy and matter appear as the universe expands.

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures
Carroll (Caltech cosmologist) teaches:

And:

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos
Greene (Columbia University physicist) writes:

He also describes how energy and matter emerge as the universe cools.

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model
This is the official model used in physics.

It states:

Space‑time begins at the Big Bang

Energy density is initially extremely high

Matter forms from energy as the universe cools

This is the model used by NASA, ESA, CERN, and every major cosmology department.

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence
Modern cosmology teaches that the universe, space, time, matter, and energy all originate together in the Big Bang — a single event at t = 0.

This is not controversial in physics. It is the standard model taught worldwide.

And this should also be stated as: "as we right now know them or understand them right now currently", etc.

Because like some other posters have suggested (@Hans Blaster and others) it's hard for us to come up with such concepts of not having them at all in situations like before the BB, when we cannot right now conceptualize or understand such things, etc. No one knows what is/was before the BB, if there was something/anything, etc.

"Time" for example, it's hard for us to conceptualize or understand there being "no time", when we can't right now conceptualize of such a thing, etc. Same with "space" as well, or having no spatial dimensions of some kind, etc, it's right now pretty much impossible for us to conceptualize of such things, which is why we can't really talk about what might have been before the BB right now currently, etc. Someday we might be able to probably, or maybe, but just not right now though currently, etc. Everything we right now know/talk about has to be after the BB right now currently, etc. So it's more accurate to say "as we right now know them or understand them right now currently", etc.

God Bless.

Larniavc · 2026-02-22T04:12:36-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
According to AI My reasoning style consistently shows traits that are absolutely characteristic of graduate‑level thinking,

I my good grief! AI says what it needs to keep you engaged!

Falling for AI engagement tools is anything but graduate thinking.

It’s the same as saying ‘my mum says I’m so clever’.

Larniavc · 2026-02-22T04:16:55-0600

Firstlightdawn said:
Schroeder’s “nonsense,” as some people call it, actually does exactly what I need it to do. His math solves the specific structural problem I was working on. If you really are the expert you claim to be, then you already know that 1.98 is the ratio between time flow and cosmic expansion. Schroeder used 2.0, but that breaks down on the sixth day because of the butterfly‑effect sensitivity in the final interval.

My model works because it uses 1.98, not 2.0, and that ratio places every day exactly where it needs to be. That’s the whole point.

And I get a bonus: the cone shows that the size and shape of the universe depend on where you are inside it. That’s a free gift — a double‑whammy — because it resolves two problems at once.

I’ve looked at what the “experts” say. There are maybe five books that even touch this subject. I’m a high‑school dropout, so my opinion doesn’t carry any weight in academic circles, but that doesn’t matter. My model does what I need it to do, and that’s enough for me. I don’t expect this to be common knowledge for another 500 years.

And for anyone who cares about the technical detail: you measure from the center of the beads. Everything in the universe is expanding.
View attachment 376762

Even atomic radii?

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

There is only 2 options, Life formed because of God, or by random chance from non-living matter

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Call Me Al

Active Member

Active Member

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon — the Rambam (Maimonides) (1138–1204)​

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Call Me Al

Active Member

Wanderer

Senior Member

Newbie

Call Me Al

Old Soul

Active Member

Active Member

⭐ **Scientific References That State:​

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time​

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages​

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”​

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics​

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics​

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures​

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing​

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures​

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos​

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model​

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence​

Old Soul

⭐ **Scientific References That State:​

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time​

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages​

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”​

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics​

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics​

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures​

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing​

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures​

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos​

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model​

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence​

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Similar threads

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon — the Rambam (Maimonides) (1138–1204)

⭐ **Scientific References That State:

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence

⭐ **Scientific References That State:

1. Stephen Hawking — A Brief History of Time

2. NASA — Official Cosmology Pages

3. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) — “Cosmology and Theology”

4. University of Cambridge — Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

5. Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics

6. MIT OpenCourseWare — Cosmology Lectures

7. Lawrence Krauss — A Universe from Nothing

8. Sean Carroll — The Big Picture and Caltech Lectures

9. Brian Greene — The Fabric of the Cosmos

10. The Standard ΛCDM Cosmological Model

⭐ The Scientific Consensus in One Sentence