The Age of the Universe

[Michael]

Claim away, for what it's worth.

Er, you evidently missed the point. The point was that I was not the first "Christian" to suggest it.

I've personally never looked to the Bible as a source of "scientific information" to begin with, but theologically speaking I'm on solid ground.

 

[zardak]

In regards to your eye witnesses in court, you have a slight problem.

In court, eye witnesses are named and are present in the flesh to give there testimony first hand. They are also going to be cross examined, to test the validity of their testimony and this is where many eye witnesses are destroyed in a court of law.

So, if you have the specific names of the eye witnesses and can provide their direct testimony and any cross examination of the same, let us know.

Specific names are... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Naysayer theologians on a Google search need not bother with their hearsay.

it's impossible for any human to live two thousand years, but the fact is that writing down the testimony (which is what it was, THEIR TESTIMONY) was the most practical and 'only' way to make it available to every human throughout the centuries, so there isn't any problem with that, thus what's your problem?

At the risk of stating the obvious, refusing to believe a testimony doesn't mean in any way that the testimony isn't true, the only problem is when the witness is deliberately telling lies, but in the case of the Gospel books we know these men were eye-witnesses and lived with Jesus in person, so cross-examination need not apply because these men came from a time when lying would get you stoned to death. But Jesus has already confirmed for us...

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Acts 10:41 "And God showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto the witnesses previously chosen by God, specifically us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."

Acts 5:32 "And WE ARE WITNESSES of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
2 peter 1:16 "IN FACT, WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, BUT WERE EYE-WITNESSES of his greatness."
2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, THIS IS MY SON, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, WHEN WE WERE 'WITH HIM' ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN."


No need for cross examination, you either believe it or you don't. I'm not the one who will end-up in hell for dribbling contradictions and denials.

 

[bhsmte]

Specific names are... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Naysayer theologians on a Google search search need not bother with their hearsay and speculation.

it's impossible for any human to live two thousand years, but the fact is that writing down the testimony (which is what it was, THEIR TESTIMONY) was the most practical and 'only' way to make it available to every human throughout the centuries, so there isn't any problem with that, thus what's your problem?

At the risk of stating the obvious, refusing to believe a testimony doesn't mean in any way that the testimony isn't true, the only problem is when the witness is deliberately telling lies, but in the case of the Gospel books we know these men were eye-witnesses and lived with Jesus in person, so cross-examination need not apply because these men came from a time when lying would get you stoned to death. But Jesus has already confirmed for us...

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Acts 10:41 "And God showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto the witnesses previously chosen by God, specifically us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."

Acts 5:32 "And WE ARE WITNESSES of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
2 peter 1:16 "IN FACT, WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, BUT WERE EYE-WITNESSES of his greatness."
2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, THIS IS MY SON, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, WHEN WE WERE 'WITH HIM' ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN."


No need for cross examination, you either believe it or you don't. I'm not the one who will end-up in hell for dribbling contradictions and denials.

You do understand, that even Christian NT scholars and historians agree, the 4 gospels were written by anonymous authors, don't you?

If you are not aware of this, you need to study up on the historicity of the NT. Also, they were penned 40-70 years after Jesus died.

No need to corroborate the claims with cross examination of the eye witnesses? How convenient, I wonder if a judge in court would go along with that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Specific names are... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Naysayer theologians on a Google search need not bother with their hearsay.

In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?

 

[sparow]

In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?

I don’t know how this got started; the Bible content is never used as evidence in court, the exception is TV court; the theory of evolution and the big bang theory would not survive in court either.


Salvation is to do with Law but not legalism. There is historical evidence that says the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ while the apostles were still alive and the oldest copies of these dates back to 30 years after the originals were written; this is determined by science; archaeology is claimed to be the most precise of all the sciences.


There is court where all stand before God in judgement and the witnesses are not human.

 

[sparow]

Well, redshift is indeed a "fact", but it's cause is not fact. The cause of photon redshift from spacetime is a "theory" which may or may not represent "fact".

In "fact", photon redshift is caused in the lab by several different types of inelastic scattering, as well as by Doppler shift. There are no empirical lab tested 'facts' however which link photon redshift to 'space expansion'. That "belief" is and remains an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer", in the unseen (in the lab). Note that Hubble himself preferred a *non expansion* interpretation of photon redshift.

Likewise, there's little or no doubt that previous mainstream baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were seriously and terminally flawed, and they therefore could not account for all the actual matter that was present and observed in earlier lensing studies. This "fact" about the flaws in their mass estimation techniques has been demonstrated *repeatedly* over the last 10 years. On the other hand, those "facts" do not seem to matter to the mainstream, who continue to base their claims about "exotic" forms of matter upon the "belief" that their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies are 'correct'. That's simply another example of an 'act of pure faith' on the part of the "believer", and a belief that actually is refuted by later revelations about their galaxy stellar mass errors since 2006. In short, it's not just faith, it's "bad faith' that flies in the face of known facts.

So therefore how old is the universe?

Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept? Could the universe have a rational beginning, springing out of nothing?

 

[zardak]

You do understand, that even Christian NT scholars and historians agree, the 4 gospels were written by anonymous authors, don't you?

If you are not aware of this, you need to study up on the historicity of the NT. Also, they were penned 40-70 years after Jesus died.

No need to corroborate the claims with cross examination of the eye witnesses? How convenient, I wonder if a judge in court would go along with that?

Ummm, you seem to have dodged the other evidence i gave, which you have conveniently failed to mention. The book of Acts and the Epistle of Peter. Strange how you were to scared to mention those quotes LOL.

All that's happening here is YOUR DENIAL. And YOUR DENIAL CANNOT STAND AS EVIDENCE because it doesn't constitute evidence LOL, and you are not in a position to say either way, whether false illegitimate scholars have made claims or not makes no difference just because you wish to believe anyone on the 'denial' side of the debate, because for every incompetent carnal unbelieving scholar, we have 100 other scholars who don't stand with them, thus the scholars denying are outnumbered 100 to 1, and therefore their claims wouldn't stand in a court of law when the corroboration of 100 other men are saying they are wrong, just like non-Christian archaeologists who dismiss everything in the Old Testament until they unearth evidence to show that the Bible was correct all along (go check the facts this time! LOL) and this has been happening for years, denial denial denial until they find artifacts and tablets and scrolls etc that show the exact names and dates written in the Bible and in the locations afore written in the Old Testament, and thus the Bible has shown itself to be correct so many times that many non-Christian archaeologists now use the Bible as the starting-point for their investigations LOL; facts my man, these are facts which show you to be a mere pathetic naysayer who has't got a foot to stand on.

So now that we have you out of the way, the thing we have available to substantiate the writers of the Gospels is 'genuine' historians who actually know what they're talking about, AND the writings of early church fathers in 200 AD citing the Gospels and there sources, and these genuine historians and early church fathers do indeed prove beyond doubt who wrote the gospels. It seems you yourself need to study-up on the historicity of the NT.. LOL.

In contrast to the Gospels, as concerns the 'Epistles', we know who wrote those, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IN DISPUTE, and these epistles which i quoted in my previous reply, have the statements needed to support what Christian's know and believe BECAUSE THOSE EPISTLES CONTAIN WRITTEN EYE-WITNESS STATEMENTS.. so you're behind the eight ball already. Funny how you made no mention of the quotes i made from the epistles, because you know it can't be disputed, but just like pathetic atheist scientists making false claims and speculating about the beginnings of our existence, they just talk nonsense and even though they have no proof at all to substantiate their theories, they just resort to speculation and denying the 'facts' of God's written word. And obviously because the epistles are not in dispute as to who wrote them, then your denials are crumbling under the weight of written eye-witness statements which by default have veracity. I shall paste them again for your benefit...

2 peter 1:16 "In fact, WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were EYE-WITNESSES of his majesty."
2 Peter 1:17 "FOR HE RECEIVED FROM GOD THE FATHER honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, 'THIS IS MY SON' < they actually heard God's voice!), in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, when we were WITH HIM on the holy mountain."

Secondly, there is no dispute by any scholar that Luke wrote Acts, and thus the writings of Luke count as eye-witness legitimacy, because Luke was with Paul on many of those travels, and as it says in the book of Acts, Paul himself in the writings of Acts recounted many times to the church members and elders what miracles God had done through him. So now that we know the 'miracles' in Acts are legit and corroborated and written down as an eye-witness statement, then clearly the writings in the Gospels are legit even more so, seeing as how we are talking about the son of God who would have done more powerful things than the things that happened in Acts. End of story.

Acts 10:41 "And God showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto the WITNESSES previously chosen by God, SPECIFICALLY US, who did eat and drink with him AFTER HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD"

Acts 5:32 "And WE ARE WITNESSES of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."

You make simple statements of denial which can't stand in the face of the FACTS, such facts as the opening statements in the beginning of Luke's Gospel, as follows...

Luke chap 1 vs 1... "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first WERE EYE WITNESSES and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, SINCE I MYSELF HAVE CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED EVERYTHING FROM THE BEGINNING, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus"

So we have eye witness accounts in writing, thus denials become simply that... DENIALS. We know who wrote the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts... Luke himself, who lived and ate with the very Jesus who walked the earth LOL
Acts 4:13 "But seeing the boldness of Peter and John, and perceiving that they were unlearned and ordinary men, they wondered; and they recognised them THAT THEY HAD BEEN WITH JESUS."

But we also know who wrote Matthew, if you would have actually taken your own advice and done your homework...

Although the author did not record his name within the text itself (a common practice in the ancient world), the first book found in the New Testament has historically been attributed to the writing of Matthew, a tax collector and one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. Although only some NT scholars doubt the authorship of Matthew, there are good reasons to believe that he was indeed the author of the first gospel. There are at least two lines of evidence that can be rallied to the defense of Matthew: (1) the superscription of the ancient manuscripts and (2) the patristic witness. A superscription is text added to an ancient manuscript by a scribe for purposes of identification; it acts as a title. According to NT scholar D. Edmond Hiebert, the first gospel’s “identifying superscription, ‘The Gospel According to Matthew,’ is the oldest known witness concerning its authorship.” Scholars believe the superscription was added as early as A.D. 125 and the “superscription is found on all known manuscripts of this gospel.” This fact is a powerful testimony to the uniformity of evidence with regard to the authorship of Matthew. The second line of evidence is the patristic witness. The early church fathers were unanimous in crediting the gospel to Matthew. Hiebert claims, “The earliest is the testimony of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, dating to the first half of the second century.” Following Papias is Irenaeus “who wrote his famous Against Heresies around A.D. 185.” The next church father to attribute authorship to Matthew is Origen, who wrote in the early third century. He is quoted by Eusebius, who wrote in the early fourth century. Finally, Eusebius himself, in the early fourth century, documents that Matthew wrote the first gospel. There is an unbroken witness to Matthew as the author of the first gospel going back to at least the middle of the second century, and there is no contradictory witness found in any of the church fathers. Due to the fragmentary nature of documentary evidence in the ancient world, our ability to trace back authorship to within 100 years of the original writing of the first Gospel is exceptional, thus presents a most persuasive case for Matthean authorship.

 

[zardak]

In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?

Written evidence remains exactly that. Third-hand need not apply. It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.

The evidence has been written, and has survived 2000 years in the form of 5000 different Greek and Latin and Arabic copies, thus self-evidently verifying the integrity of those writings, and therefore in a court of law such written evidence would qualify as signed document of authenticity. Third-hand is quaint idea but really quite fanciful accusation.

 

[zardak]

So therefore how old is the universe?

Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept? Could the universe have a rational beginning, springing out of nothing?

The fundamental law of science and physics is that you cannot get something from nothing; capiche? These atheists and God rejectors will say anything and stab in the dark wildly just to avoid admitting that they are sinners, and in need of salvation. They are all full of 'pride' as the New testament says "They are proud, knowing nothing, and destitute of the truth"

Genesis 2:2 "By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done."

Quite simple really.

If we had been here tens of thousands of years (as in the case where scientists say Australian Aboriginals are a race 50,000 years old), based on speculation when seeing the physical attributes of them looking like neanderthals, these scientists are basically saying that somehow all humans came from Aboriginals, or that there are different species of human ROFL. < ridiculous and stupid notions that make no sense whatsoever, thus these scientists are talking foolish nonsensical trash!

Scientists can affirm for you that if humans had been here even only 10,000 years, the earth's population would be standing toe-to-toe with no room to lie down and layered 100 people high standing on each others shoulders LOL. Do you see how nonsensical and stupid these atheists are. Even common sense evades them LOL

So now lets remind these nonsensical blind atheists of the simple truth "Exodus 20:11 "For in SIX DAYS the LORD made heaven (space) and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day".

Trace back the lineage of Jesus back to Adam and you have 4000 BC, thus giving us the truth, THAT WAS THE BEGINNING, and how, because "In the BEGINNING God created the universe and the earth" IN SIX DAYS!!

 

[bhsmte]

I don’t know how this got started; the Bible content is never used as evidence in court, the exception is TV court; the theory of evolution and the big bang theory would not survive in court either.


Salvation is to do with Law but not legalism. There is historical evidence that says the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ while the apostles were still alive and the oldest copies of these dates back to 30 years after the originals were written; this is determined by science; archaeology is claimed to be the most precise of all the sciences.


There is court where all stand before God in judgement and the witnesses are not human.

The theory of evolution and the big bang would do quite well in a court of law.

You ever watch a court case, in which a forensic pathologist is called to the stand as an expert and they discuss and explain the evidence in a case?

 

[bhsmte]

Written evidence remains exactly that. Third-hand need not apply. It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.

The evidence has been written, and has survived 2000 years in the form of 5000 different Greek and Latin and Arabic copies, thus self-evidently verifying the integrity of those writings, and therefore in a court of law such written evidence would qualify as signed document of authenticity. Third-hand is quaint idea but really quite fanciful accusation.

You need to do some homework on NT scholarship and historicity.

 

[Michael]

You need to do some homework on NT scholarship and historicity.

It's actually more complicated than you suggest. The "third party" claim is a tad oversimplified however since there are letters from James, John and Jude that are recorded in the Bible, *all* of whom met Jesus. There's also debate about who exactly had a hand in the Gospel of John. Considering the lengthy narratives, the Apostle John, and/or his first generation students, are a *likely* source of the bulk of that material. In fact *only* apostles would have been present during the dialogs presented in John 14 and 17.

 

[Michael]

The theory of evolution and the big bang would do quite well in a court of law.

Evolution? Sure. Big Bang theory? No way. Talk about "third party" testimony. Not one of them can even so much as name a single source of "dark energy", and their 'dark matter' claims are all based upon *flawed* galaxy mass estimates. I'd eat them alive in a court of law, because their whole case about photon redshift is hearsay!

You ever watch a court case, in which a forensic pathologist is called to the stand as an expert and they discuss and explain the evidence in a case?

I'd love to hear them explain to a jury why they simply ignored the fact that they *grossly* underestimated entire stars in various galaxies by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy.

You're whistling Dixie with respect to Big Bang theory holding up in a court of law. The entire set of claims is based on now *falsified* premises. "Standard Candles" have been shown to *not* be standard as falsely advertised, and their 2006 baronic galaxy mass estimates were shown to be completely worthless. Then there are those *string* of failures at LHC, LUX, PandaX and the those electron roundness 'tests', all of which falsified their 'predictions', demonstrating a complete lack of useful predictive value.

 

[Michael]

So therefore how old is the universe?

Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics, it's entirely possible that it's eternal for all I know. Various objects might form along specific timelines, but the *whole* universe might be changing forms infinitely.

Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept?

Considering our laws of physics insist that energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed, yes. It can change forms infinitely, but there's no evidence that there was ever a time that energy did not exist.

Could the universe have a rational beginning,

In theory at least, our physical universe could have a "beginning" if "matter" as we understand it did not exist at some point in time. Unfortunately there is *zero* evidence to support that idea.

springing out of nothing?

Nothing? No, that simply isn't possible. According to the laws of physics, it could spring forth from a different *form* of energy, but it couldn't spring forth from "nothing".

 

[Michael]

Written evidence remains exactly that. Third-hand need not apply.

It actually does *not* apply to the letters from James (his brother), John and Jude that are recorded in the NT. Those authors are identified, and they are 'first hand' witnesses. While the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are probably community works, and may or may not have required an apostle to write it, the Gospel of John is *filled* with quotes and narratives that could *only* have been recorded by a first hand witness, and only by one of the 12 apostles. Content like John 14 and John 17 could *only* have come from a first hand witness, and that witness would *necessarily* have been one of the 12 apostles.

It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.

FYI, most scholars assume that all the gospels are "community" efforts, particularly the synoptic Gospels. The Gospel of John very well may have been put together by John's first generation of students rather than John himself, but quotes attributed to Jesus would *necessarily* have come from a first hand witness.

The evidence has been written, and has survived 2000 years in the form of 5000 different Greek and Latin and Arabic copies, thus self-evidently verifying the integrity of those writings, and therefore in a court of law such written evidence would qualify as signed document of authenticity. Third-hand is quaint idea but really quite fanciful accusation.

That's especially true as it relates to various letters recorded in the NT, particularly from his own brother.

 

[Davian]

Since energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics, it's entirely possible that it's eternal for all I know. Various objects might form along specific timelines, but the *whole* universe might be changing forms infinitely.



Considering our laws of physics insist that energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed, yes. It can change forms infinitely, but there's no evidence that there was ever a time that energy did not exist.



In theory at least, our physical universe could have a "beginning" if "matter" as we understand it did not exist at some point in time. Unfortunately there is *zero* evidence to support that idea.



Nothing? No, that simply isn't possible. According to the laws of physics, it could spring forth from a different *form* of energy, but it couldn't spring forth from "nothing".

"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time." -- Stephen Hawking

Are you more qualified in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking? No?

 

[Michael]

"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere.

Actually, ya, it really does have to come from preexisting *energy*, energy which cannot be created nor destroyed according to the *laws* of physics as we understand them.

When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter.

Assuming you actually could 'create matter', it would *still* required preexisting energy.

It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe.

Well, until and unless he can show me that raw energy isn't a constant over over time, I'll have to go with the *laws* of physics.

The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed.

And yet that statement *is not* true of energy which is constant because energy *cannot* be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms, including into the form of "matter" as we understand it.

But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy.

Bingo!

And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero.

Bzzzt. This statement is simply false. The universe is *filled* with *positive* amounts of energy, energy we use and reuse all the time. The sunshine on your face demonstrates this claim to be false.

The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field.

What "negative energy"? Gravity isn't a form of energy *at all* in GR theory, it's simply a curvature of spacetime, like a hill. It's neither positive or negative energy, it's a *geometric feature* in GR! Holy Cow! Apparently this is "metaphysical gravity", not GR.

So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter

.

Absolutely false. The curvature of spacetime is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy, and gravity is not a form of "energy' in GR theory at all! it's simply a geometric feature of spacetime that is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy. We could just as easily call gravity a form of 'positive potential energy' if you like, particularly if there is *distance* involved between objects. This whole claim *defies* GR theory by the way. Gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR theory, it's a *geometric curvature*!

Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time.

Obvious to whom? How does he know that? Redshift? Give me a break. Redshift has *several* known and demonstrated empirical causes, none of which are 'expanding space'.

Now you can ask: what sets the universe off.

Energy! Even the *expansion* of matter would require *energy*, otherwise the whole thing would implode due to gravity. This claim gets weirder and weirder by the minute.

There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe.

First he claims that the universe 'starts off' at a certain time, and then he claims it doesn't have a beginning. I wish he'd make up his mind already. His own statements as *self conflicted*, and scientifically unsupported by GR which treats gravity as a *curvature*, not a form of 'energy'. He's mixing Newtonian concepts of gravity with a creation mythos that depends and requires *GR theory*! Talk about bait and switch. Gravity simply *is not* a form of 'negative energy' in GR. In fact you can talk about the distances between objects as a form of *positive potential* energy that can turn into *positive kinetic energy* as they attract each other over a distance.

It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."

-- Stephen Hawking

Yawn. He's *again* deviating from GR theory while his *entire claim* about a Big bang is *dependent* upon it! Gravity is not 'negative energy' in GR.

Are you more qualified in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking? No?

As it relates to 96 percent of their theory I am. Not one of them can name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy', and their failed "predictions" about dark matter at LHC, LUX and PandaX, along with all those revelations about stelar miscounts have demonstrated their repeated *incompetence*. What "qualification" does he have on dark energy if he can't even name a source of the stuff, and the whole claim depends on "standard candles' that aren't actually even "standard' at all?

Please. That was nothing but a ridiculous appeal to authority. At least Alfven won an actual Nobel Prize, unlike Hawking.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don’t know how this got started; the Bible content is never used as evidence in court, the exception is TV court; the theory of evolution and the big bang theory would not survive in court either.

Evolution has survived in court. ID/creationism completely failed in that same court case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

In fact, evolution has withstood several challenges in court.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html#court

The theory of evolution has tons of DNA evidence to support it. So much evidence that the guy who led the human genome project had this to say:

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory."--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://tulsa.younglife.org/Documents/Francis Collins Article on Faith_Science.pdf

BTW, Dr. Collins is a devout Christian and he wrote that essay with Christians in mind. I think you would find it a good read. Also, the theory of evolution has survived 150 years of challenges by the scientific community, and it has passed with flying colors. Ernst Mayr was around for 80 years of the historic development of the theory of evolution, and this is what he had to say:

"By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigm—nor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair."--Ernst Mayr, "80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery"
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5680/46.full

Salvation is to do with Law but not legalism. There is historical evidence that says the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ while the apostles were still alive and the oldest copies of these dates back to 30 years after the originals were written; this is determined by science; archaeology is claimed to be the most precise of all the sciences.

Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself, and he was a direct witness of the Golden Tablets. I would guess that you probably don't accept the Book of Mormon being true.

There is court where all stand before God in judgement and the witnesses are not human.

What will you say to Zeus when you stand before him?

 

[Davian]

Actually, ya, it really does have to come from preexisting *energy*, energy which cannot be created nor destroyed according to the *laws* of physics as we understand them.



Assuming you actually could 'create matter', it would *still* required preexisting energy.



Well, until and unless he can show me that raw energy isn't a constant over over time, I'll have to go with the *laws* of physics.



And yet that statement *is not* true of energy which is constant because energy *cannot* be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms, including into the form of "matter" as we understand it.



Bingo!



Bzzzt. This statement is simply false. The universe is *filled* with *positive* amounts of energy, energy we use and reuse all the time. The sunshine on your face demonstrates this claim to be false.



What "negative energy"? Gravity isn't a form of energy *at all* in GR theory, it's simply a curvature of spacetime, like a hill. It's neither positive or negative energy, it's a *geometric feature* in GR! Holy Cow! Apparently this is "metaphysical gravity", not GR.



Absolutely false. The curvature of spacetime is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy, and gravity is not a form of "energy' in GR theory at all! it's simply a geometric feature of spacetime that is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy. We could just as easily call gravity a form of 'positive potential energy' if you like, particularly if there is *distance* involved between objects. This whole claim *defies* GR theory by the way. Gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR theory, it's a *geometric curvature*!



Obvious to whom? How does he know that? Redshift? Give me a break. Redshift has *several* known and demonstrated empirical causes, none of which are 'expanding space'.



Energy! Even the *expansion* of matter would require *energy*, otherwise the whole thing would implode due to gravity. This claim gets weirder and weirder by the minute.



First he claims that the universe 'starts off' at a certain time, and then he claims it doesn't have a beginning. I wish he'd make up his mind already. His own statements as *self conflicted*, and scientifically unsupported by GR which treats gravity as a *curvature*, not a form of 'energy'. He's mixing Newtonian concepts of gravity with a creation mythos that depends and requires *GR theory*! Talk about bait and switch. Gravity simply *is not* a form of 'negative energy' in GR. In fact you can talk about the distances between objects as a form of *positive potential* energy that can turn into *positive kinetic energy* as they attract each other over a distance.


Yawn. He's *again* deviating from GR theory while his *entire claim* about a Big bang is *dependent* upon it! Gravity is not 'negative energy' in GR.



As it relates to 96 percent of their theory I am. Not one of them can name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy', and their failed "predictions" about dark matter at LHC, LUX and PandaX, along with all those revelations about stelar miscounts have demonstrated their repeated *incompetence*. What "qualification" does he have on dark energy if he can't even name a source of the stuff, and the whole claim depends on "standard candles' that aren't actually even "standard' at all?

Please. That was nothing but a ridiculous appeal to authority. At least Alfven won an actual Nobel Prize, unlike Hawking.

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014

 

[Loudmouth]

Written evidence remains exactly that.

Written stories are not evidence. If they were, we would have evidence for wizards in the Harry Potter books.

It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.

Where is the evidence that any of those men ate with Jesus? You are aware that men can write fictional stories, right?