• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

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

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,972
5,581
47
Oregon
✟1,162,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
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 said (@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.
@Firstlightdawn

Right now, something can only be described/conceptualized as even being a "thing", only if it exists within the dimensions that we right now know about/live in right now currently, etc, and our understanding can't/doesn't/can't go beyond that right now currently, etc. Which limits us to only being able to discuss, only what is after the BB right now currently.

God Bless.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
24,972
5,581
47
Oregon
✟1,162,697.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
I my good grief! AI says what it needs to keep you engaged!
I hate it when they do that, or shift towards that. I'll be trying to say something to it, or have a discussion about some thing with it, and it's first few replies will be great usually, but then I'll notice it shift more towards pleasing me, or just keep me talking/engaged after that (people pleasing) and I'll be like "No, I want you to be 100% completely honest with me you infernal machine!", lol. But, yeah, I wish they wouldn't design them like that, etc, but at least I'm always aware of it I guess. I often try to steer it back, to the best of my ability anyway, etc. I always have to remind myself that it might not have a personality of its own, therefore it always having 100% complete honesty with me always, is probably difficult, etc.

Take Care.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Firstlightdawn

Active Member
Jan 17, 2026
376
65
73
Cuyahoga Falls
✟4,602.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
"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.
It is easier for us to conceptualize something because it is almost impossible for us to have a concept of nothing. You say it is easier to have a concept of time, compared to having a concept of no time or nothing. That is just the way God made us, He made creation in a way that it can be understood. He made us wth the ability to understand. He created us to be an observer but even more we are given domininon and authority. That is why we even have an effect on what we observe.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
31,080
14,016
78
✟467,820.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It would have been nice but sadly I don't think there was a snowflake in hell's chance of that happening. He's obviously too smart for the likes of us...
The quick and easy way to derail a bumptious YEC is to lure them out into the open where they have to discuss the science. The smart ones will avoid that ploy, of course, and some of them, after being burned, will seek creationist literature for examples of "science refutes evolution." The problem for them there, is that those "examples" are made for people with no understanding of science and when they place them before someone with even a bit of actual science competence, they are embarrassed.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,600
18,002
56
USA
✟465,491.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm not going to waste my time arguing with the machine you got to argue for you, but there are some really silly things in your list of pop-sci books and course notes.

⭐ **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.
Physicists don't cite philosophy.

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.
There is no such thing as an "official model" in science.
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.
"Cosmology department"? LOL. Never heard of a "cosmology department". NASA and ESA are space agencies, CERN is a particle physics lab,

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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: sjastro
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,200
5,041
✟373,999.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single

⭐ **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.
This is an impressive list of cherry picking and highlights the dangers in manipulating AI to get any answer you want.

Your first reference is a dead giveaway, I read Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time many years ago and it is not a standard reference used in physics or cosmology as it was written for the general public.
Real references on cosmology that deal with the singularity at t = 0 show that Hawking along with Bartle came up with the No Boundary Proposal where time behaves like a spatial dimension or more precisely imaginary time as a complex number before the Planck time 10⁻⁴³s, in which case the universe has no lower boundary in time in a temporal sense.
Given the No Boundary Proposal proceeded Hawking’s book, his claim that space, time, and energy are all part of the same Big Bang creation event, means his concept of time is not the same as what you think it is

Do you comprehend what t = 0 means, it is cosmological time or coordinate time based on our frame of reference as comoving observers in an expanding universe but breaks down before the Planck time.
The cosmological time t = 0 is a mathematical boundary not a physical one as spacetime itself is not defined before the Planck time.
A cosmologist or cosmological textbook will tell you the state of the universe before the Planck time is an unknown and therefore one cannot claim space and time were created at the Big Bang.

This leads to another issue there are misconceptions about cosmology even at a textbook level.
Tamara Davis an astrophysicist and cosmologist has made her PhD thesis publicly available which I frequently use, has pointed out some of these misconceptions which generally arise when scientists try to simplify the science to the public at the cost of accuracy.

Misconception about CosmologyWhat Davis clarifiedExamples of physicists/authors whose statements reflected the misconception*Notes from Davis’s thesis / related paper
Galaxies cannot recede faster than lightIn general relativity, recession due to expansion of space can exceed (c) without violating relativity.Some textbook interpretations discussed in cosmology literature; early interpretations of redshift linked to Edwin Hubble’s Doppler framing.Davis & Lineweaver showed superluminal recession is expected in FLRW cosmology.
We cannot observe galaxies receding faster than lightWe can observe them if the light was emitted when conditions allowed photons to move toward us despite expansion.Misinterpretations found in several astronomy textbooks and teaching materials.Clarified using spacetime diagrams and photon worldlines.
The Hubble radius is a true horizon (edge of the observable universe)The Hubble sphere (c/H) is not a horizon; objects can cross it and still be observable.Statements appearing in various cosmology explanations and educational texts.Distinguished between Hubble sphere, particle horizon, and event horizon.
The Big Bang was an explosion into pre-existing spaceThe Big Bang represents expansion of spacetime everywhere, not an explosion from a central point.Popular explanations including some simplified descriptions by Stephen Hawking and other science communicators.Davis emphasized the correct GR interpretation of expansion.
Cosmological redshift is just a Doppler shiftAt large distances, redshift arises from the expansion of spacetime, not purely Doppler motion.Early interpretations influenced by special-relativistic intuition; discussed in historical treatments of Hubble’s work.Demonstrated the GR derivation of redshift in expanding universes.
Confusion between cosmic horizonsDifferent horizons (particle, event, Hubble sphere) have distinct physical meanings.Mixed explanations found across cosmology literature and lectures.Davis clarified horizon definitions mathematically and observationally.
 
Upvote 0