The Only Debate Worth Having About Science And The Past

[The Cadet]

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.


Courtesy of The Abstract Factory.

I challenge anyone here who thinks that science cannot examine the past to commit a crime - and crime - that leaves no direct witnesses, then argue that forensics cannot be applied in your trial because science cannot examine the past. You'll be laughed out of the room and into a jail cell, because you're so phenomenally, mind-bogglingly wrong that laughter is the only reasonable response.

 

[Rygaku]

I was having a conversation about Jack the Ripper and me and a few friends came to the conclusion.
The person committing the crimes had to be well educated, outstanding in society, also wealthy and have
a bit of power as well. And that as far as how we got.

 

[Michael]

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Highly entertaining.

 

[dgiharris]

..... it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.....

I loved it

It does get tiring countering ridiculous arguments, taking the time to put together empirical evidence and data that proves the validity of your argument only to have said argument shrugged off like water off a duck's back and countered with anecdotal nonsense and mental jibberish that has no more spine or backing than a jellyfish....

A few threads ago I got into an argument with someone about time dilation, in a nutshell he REFUSED to believe that time can speed up or slow down depending on frame of reference. After showing him links and data and pointing to satellites and red shift and yada yada yada his retort was, "Well I refuse to believe it because in Genesis it says...."

And it wasn't what Genesis says, it was his INTERPRETATION of what Genesis says... And that is what is so maddening about these discussions, the person believes "his" interpretation of the bible is infallible. And you can't argue with someone who thinks they are infallible.

Unless, apparently you have a baseball bat

 

[Split Rock]

LOL. Reminds me of this one:

The Moon is Made of Cheese! A Creation/Evolution allegory

by Damian Carroll

The following transcript is from a debate between Carl Johnson, P.H.D., a leader in the rapidly developing field of “Celestial Foodstuffs,” and Mark Howard, an undergraduate astronomy student.

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, welcome to the debate. Today’s topic: Lunar Composition. For years, schoolchildren have been taught only one theory about the composition of our orbiting sister, the Moon, popularly known as the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” Theory. But this theory has come under fire recently by a group of religious and political activists, demanding equal time for their own views, dubbed the “Celestial Foodstuffs” Theory. Educators and scientists say that CF Theory is no more than a barely disguised reworking of the ancient “Moon Is Made Of Cheese” Theory. Our debate today will focus on differences between these two intriguing fields of research, in the hopes that the public will gain greater understanding of each. We’ll begin with Carl.

CARL: Thank you. Folks, I’m here tonight to tell you something groundbreaking. It’s something most scientists do not want you to hear. They’re afraid that if you discover the truths I’m about to tell you, you’ll stop funding their research. You won’t allow them a monopoly in what gets taught in our school science classes. But luckily, after tonight you’ll be armed with the latest in cutting-edge research and proven facts that will allow you to refute the bogus theory that has a stranglehold on our educational system. I’m talking, of course, about the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” theory. What’s that you say? You thought scientists had proof that the Moon is made of rock? Well, folks, I’m here tonight to tell you they don’t. “Moon Is Made Of Rock,” or as I like to call it, MIMOR, is just a theory. It hasn’t been proven. And until it is proven, conclusively, all we ask is that our Celestial Foodstuffs theory be given equal time.

MODERATOR: Thank you Carl. Mark…

MARK: First of all, I can’t believe we’re even having a debate about this. But since we’re all here, I’ll try to make this short. The Moon is definitely made of rock. That’s a fact. We have loads and loads of evidence. We have rocks from the Moon. We’ve run thousands of chemical tests on Moon materials – they’ve all come up as, well, rock. We’ve sent astronauts to the Moon – they saw that it was, in fact, made of rock. Now, it’s true we don’t know exactly how the Moon was formed. We have some good ideas and there is ongoing research. But as far as the Moon being made of cheese, I don’t understand how anybody could still believe that.

MODERATOR: Thanks, Mark. Carl…

CARL: Folks, Mister Howard would like you to think that all scientists agree on MIMOR. But this is absolutely not the case. I, for example, have P.H.D.s in Nutrition and Statistics, and I do not agree. Furthermore, many of my colleagues find grave problems with MIMOR theory. Even leading astronomers have trouble accepting the theory. Why, just last April NASA scientists admitted, “Many questions remain about the chemical composition of the Moon.”

MARK: That quote is totally out of context. You know as well as I do that NASA was talking about the exact chemical composition of Moon rock. They certainly do not doubt that the Moon is made of rock, and there’s no way that they are saying it might be cheese!

CARL: I’ll leave that up to the audience to decide. My point is that many questions about Moon composition remain unsolved, yet Mark Howard would have you believe they’ve got it all sewn up. That simply isn’t true.

MODERATOR: Well let’s look into your Celestial Foodstuffs theory, Carl. Tell us how your research points to the Moon having a dairy-based composition.

CARL: I’d be happy to. For hundreds of years, humans have known intuitively that the Moon is made of cheese. It’s really quite obvious if you don’t hide behind a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo. Let me give you a little thought experiment. If you opened up your refrigerator at home, and saw something greenish white, with little holes in it, you would assume it was cheese. Any rational person would do the same. Why then, should the case of an object in the sky be any different? Logically, we should assume the same thing – the Moon is white, the Moon has holes, and therefore it is cheese. But don’t take my word for it -- I have statistical facts to back up that statement.

MODERATOR: Well let’s get into those statistics. As you know, for a long time Moon Is Made Of Cheese theory was based largely on doctrine. Poems, literature, and the like insisted that the Moon was cheese-based. But you say your Celestial Foodstuffs theory incorporates new evidence.

CARL: That’s right. Let’s first look at the so-called “scientific” theory that is taught in our schools today. Scientists tell us that the Moon is a huge ball of rock, circling – in astronomical terms – right next to the Earth, another huge ball of rock. Now I ask you, does this make sense? Does it seem likely that two balls of rock would be found right next to each other in space? Let’s look at the math. According to scientists, the ratio of empty space to rock in the universe is enormous. Jump anywhere in space and you are likely to find yourself in a totally rock-free zone. Considering this, what are the chances that two balls of rock would appear right next to each other in the vast enormity of space? I’ve performed the calculations, and the answer is: nil. Of all the places for a ball of rock to appear, right next to the Earth is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. So we’re left with the question – if a ball of rock could not appear next to the Earth, what might the Moon in fact be? And of course, the only other possibility is a ball of cheese.

MARK: That’s totally ridiculous. You’re assuming that the Moon just appeared randomly out of nowhere. No scientist would argue that. You’ve ignored everything we know about the development of solar systems, planets, and moons. What’s more, even if you could prove that our Moon was not made of rock, there’s no reason to assume that cheese is the only other alternative. What are the chances of a ball of cheese appearing next to the earth?

CARL: I would love to give you that calculation, and believe me, I am working on it. The problem is, because science has totally ignored the possibility of Celestial Foodstuffs, we have no data about the ratio of cheese to empty space in the universe! Until science takes our theory seriously, we will have to gather that data on our own, and that takes time.

MARK: Science has no reason to study cheese ratios in the universe. We’ve never found cheese anywhere except here on Earth. On the other hand, we have found loads and loads of rock on the Moon. How do you explain that?

CARL: Mark is referring here to so-called “rock evidence,” gathered on the Moon by astronauts, that scientists claim proves their case. I don’t have to tell you that this evidence is spotty at best. Astronauts have only set foot on a very small fraction of the Moon. The Moon rocks they’ve gathered show us only tiny pieces of what the total composition of the Moon might be. Here’s a little thought experiment: imagine you are a tiny astronaut on the Moon. You come to Earth and land in Wisconsin, a region rich in cheese. In fact, your spaceship lands on a large cheese wheel. You get out of your ship, take some samples, and bring them back to the Moon. There, your Moon scientists analyze the samples, and determine that the Earth must be made of cheese! I think we can all see how NASA has made this very mistake. They’ve sent their astronauts to a couple isolated locations on the Moon that contain some rock. But we’ve seen no samples from the vast regions between those scattered Moon landings. They bring us back tiny pieces of the puzzle and expect us to jump to conclusions along with them. But there is no reason to make that jump! The Moon is no more made of rock than the Earth is made of cheese.

MARK: Carl is right. We don’t have samples from every inch of the Moon. Trying to collect them would be a logistical nightmare. We don’t have the resources to send millions of missions to the Moon to take samples in every direction. Luckily, we don’t need to do so. The samples we have from the Moon paint the larger picture, and every one of them is consistent with the moon being made of rock. We can’t prove that every inch of the Moon is rock, but we have shown that possibility to be far and away the most likely. I’d like to ask Carl, are you saying it’s a coincidence that every time we landed on the Moon, we just happened to be on a huge platform of rock?

CARL: I don’t know, Mark. That’s not for me to prove. You’re the one saying the whole Moon is rock. You’re the one saying that’s the only theory our children should hear.

MARK: We may not have rock from every corner of the Moon, but one thing we’ve never found is cheese!

CARL: That’s what science would like us to believe. But I suspect that scientists may be hiding cheese evidence, for fear that it would demolish their case. It wouldn’t be the first time science perpetrated a fraud. Let me call your attention to the Buzz Aldrin fiasco. As you know, in 1982 Mister Aldrin was caught telling a girl in a bar that some rocks in his pocket were authentic Moon rocks. But subsequent chemical tests proved that those rocks were from a ranch in Montana! Do you deny that this was a case of clear-cut lies?

MARK: Yes, we’ve all heard about the Buzz incident. But let me point out that it was scientists who discovered that fraud, and publicly debunked it! The beauty of science is that every claim is rigorously tested by a large number of individuals.

CARL: Nevertheless, we can see how scientists are perfectly capable of misleading the public. What’s more, I am not convinced that the samples brought back from the Moon are rock at all. A careful look at those samples shows that they are indistinguishable from old, hardened cheese! Anyone who has let cheese sit out for a couple days in a cold, dry climate – such as that on the Moon – knows that cheese can harden to a remarkably rock-like consistency. Imagine how hard cheese could get after a couple billion years spent orbiting the Earth! Thus, science has not proven that their samples are non-cheese.

MARK: Just because you say it could be cheese, doesn’t make it true! Are you a geologist? Have you ever taken a chemistry class?

CARL: Ah, again, we see the appeals to scientific elitism. As if regular people aren’t smart enough to understand the complexities of lunar study.

MARK: You’re the one who is treating this audience like idiots.

CARL: Mark, Mark, Mark. Science has tried again and again to beat down CF theory, and failed every time. Scientists said the Moon could not be cheese, because cheese has little holes and the Moon has big ones. We replied that a piece of cheese as big as the Moon would naturally have bigger holes. They said a piece of cheese that large would require an enormous cow to provide the milk. We replied that enormous cows may very well live right outside our solar system. They said a piece of cheese that large would emit an odor so strong –

MARK: Scientists never said any of those things! You’re making up arguments just to knock them down!

CARL: Be that as it may, your research has never looked into any of these possibilities! Have you constructed a giant cheese smell-o-meter and sent it into orbit as CF supporters have demanded? Why not? Are you afraid of what such a smell-o-meter might find?

MARK: You’re talking nonsense. Scientists don’t have time to chase down every half-baked theory that gets thrown at them. We work based on what we know. We know that the only materials ever brought back from the moon were rock. Nobody has ever shown evidence of cheese composition. You can’t expect us to take twelve steps backwards just to satisfy your idiotic demands.

CARL: But you don’t know that the whole moon is rock. You can’t be positive. You’ve only studied a tiny fraction of the moon.

MARK: A countless number of separate experiments have all arrived at the same result.

CARL: But you don’t know for sure. It’s possible that the moon is made of cheese.

MARK: It is extremely unlikely. It is so unlikely it doesn’t even warrant consideration.

CARL: But it’s possible?

MARK: Fine, yes, I suppose it’s possible, in the sense that any incredibly unlikely thing is still possible.

CARL: Exactly. And that is precisely why Celestial Foodstuffs Theory should be taught alongside MIMOR theory in school science classes. We just don’t know which is true. Millions of Americans believe firmly that the Moon is cheese, and their views should be addressed.

MARK: You’re talking about teaching something in a science class that no reputable scientist believes.

CARL: Well why should scientists have a monopoly on science? I say, let the public in. Anybody with an idea they feel passionately about deserves to have that idea taught to children in the public schools.

MARK: That’s absurd. Why even have science classes if you’re not going to teach established science?

CARL: All we ask is for our children to learn the truth.

MARK: Whose truth?

CARL: Well mine, of course. The Moon is made of cheese, Mark. It’s about time you stopped arguing and just accepted that fact.

 

[KWCrazy]

This is entertaining in its silliness. Strawman VS strawman; like Celebrity Death Match without the deeper profundity. One argument pretends that an obviously observed and experienced event equates to suppositions about the unobserved and another pretends that the composition of the moon is thought to be cheese by someone other than Dr. Suess. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself? If you're wrong and there is a God you've been disrespecting all these years the consequence is a serious negative. If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy, then you know that some external force is responsible for our existence.

 

[Split Rock]

This is entertaining in its silliness. Strawman VS strawman; like Celebrity Death Match without the deeper profundity. One argument pretends that an obviously observed and experienced event equates to suppositions about the unobserved and another pretends that the composition of the moon is thought to be cheese by someone other than Dr. Suess. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself? If you're wrong and there is a God you've been disrespecting all these years the consequence is a serious negative. If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy, then you know that some external force is responsible for our existence.

You are missing the point, that the arguments used in these made up stories are the same type of arguments used by creationists.

 

[KWCrazy]

You are missing the point, that the arguments used in these made up stories are the same type of arguments used by creationists.

STRAW MAN. I've never seen a creationist state that the moon is made of cheese, so your statement is false. The first one shows an observable action and denies it. I never saw anyone denying an observable action. It's a STRAW MAN. How about this one. Two evolutionists walk into a bar. The creationist uses the door. To believe that the everything came from nothing on it's own requires that you ignore the simple truth that something cannot come from nothing. Origination cannot and does not happen. The origination of matter is CONTRARY to the laws of science. It is NOT science. Universal common descent is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or polytheism. You're putting your trust in the claims of others that increasing complexity happened despite the inability of anyone to demonstrate it. You accept it because the alternative is terrifying; that there is a God and an ultimate responsibility for our actions.

 

[The Cadet]

This is entertaining in its silliness. Strawman VS strawman; like Celebrity Death Match without the deeper profundity. One argument pretends that an obviously observed and experienced event equates to suppositions about the unobserved

No, actually, it doesn't. The observations made about the creationist's busted kneecap (at least by the time the trial rolls around) are all based in the past. Sure, we had people who were there to observe it, but eyewitness testimony is actually notoriously unreliable when compared with forensic data. Or hell, imagine that there weren't a ton of witnesses - what then? The analogy becomes even more obvious when the scientist breaks the creationist's kneecap in a situation where they are both alone; or if they both go into a room, one of them holding a baseball bat, and then afterwards come out, one sporting a broken, bloodied baseball bat and the other sporting a broken, bloodied leg.

Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself?

Can you be 100% positive that ONLY natural forces were involved in the breaking of the man's leg? Personally, I suspect that the person with the shattered kneecap would accept this claim particularly readily.

If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy

If you understand science enough to realize that the universe may well have a net energy and mass of zero, then you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.

 

[Sofaman]

STRAW MAN. I've never seen a creationist state that the moon is made of cheese, so your statement is false. The first one shows an observable action and denies it. I never saw anyone denying an observable action. It's a STRAW MAN. How about this one. Two evolutionists walk into a bar. The creationist uses the door. To believe that the everything came from nothing on it's own requires that you ignore the simple truth that something cannot come from nothing. Origination cannot and does not happen. The origination of matter is CONTRARY to the laws of science. It is NOT science. Universal common descent is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or polytheism. You're putting your trust in the claims of others that increasing complexity happened despite the inability of anyone to demonstrate it. You accept it because the alternative is terrifying; that there is a God and an ultimate responsibility for our actions.

Is that a simple truth?

 

[Split Rock]

STRAW MAN. I've never seen a creationist state that the moon is made of cheese, so your statement is false.

You haven't seen creationists claim that scientists are hiding the truth because they are afraid they will lose their funding ?

You haven't seen creationists claim that non-scientists should be allowed to weigh in on science, regardless of their understanding of science?

You haven't seen creationists claim that all theories should be given equal weight, regardless of how they conflict with reality?

I sure have.

The first one shows an observable action and denies it. I never saw anyone denying an observable action.

Evolution is observable. The effects of evolution are observable.

It's a STRAW MAN. How about this one. Two evolutionists walk into a bar. The creationist uses the door. To believe that the everything came from nothing on it's own requires that you ignore the simple truth that something cannot come from nothing. Origination cannot and does not happen. The origination of matter is CONTRARY to the laws of science. It is NOT science. Universal common descent is every bit as much a religion as Christianity or polytheism. You're putting your trust in the claims of others that increasing complexity happened despite the inability of anyone to demonstrate it. You accept it because the alternative is terrifying; that there is a God and an ultimate responsibility for our actions.

The theory of evolution says nothing about "everything coming from nothing."

You guys are the ones who are terrified of acknowledging reality. Heck, one of our resident creationist here refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that the present was created from events that occurred in the past... why? because he is so afraid of what that means for his religious dogma.

 

[Oafman]

I like this thread! And particularly, this phrase:

metaphysical wankery

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This is entertaining in its silliness. Strawman VS strawman; like Celebrity Death Match without the deeper profundity. One argument pretends that an obviously observed and experienced event equates to suppositions about the unobserved and another pretends that the composition of the moon is thought to be cheese by someone other than Dr. Suess. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself? If you're wrong and there is a God you've been disrespecting all these years the consequence is a serious negative. If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy, then you know that some external force is responsible for our existence.

At last, some sense in the midst of all this nonsense.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You haven't seen creationists claim that scientists are hiding the truth because they are afraid they will lose their funding ?

You haven't seen creationists claim that non-scientists should be allowed to weigh in on science, regardless of their understanding of science?

You haven't seen creationists claim that all theories should be given equal weight, regardless of how they conflict with reality?

I sure have.


Evolution is observable. The effects of evolution are observable.


The theory of evolution says nothing about "everything coming from nothing."

You guys are the ones who are terrified of acknowledging reality. Heck, one of our resident creationist here refuses to acknowledge the simple fact that the present was created from events that occurred in the past... why? because he is so afraid of what that means for his religious dogma.

If it didn't come from nothing, where exactly did it come from then if God didn't create it? Sounds like a miracle to me, but wait, we can't have miracles can we because that would imply a miracle maker.

 

[Split Rock]

If it didn't come from nothing, where exactly did it come from then if God didn't create it? Sounds like a miracle to me, but wait, we can't have miracles can we because that would imply a miracle maker.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth... in other words, the Origin of Species (ring a bell?), not the origin of life. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? I tell you what... you can have your miracle for the origin of life on earth... as long as you agree it has evolved since. Deal?

 

[Doveaman]

The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth... in other words, the Origin of Species (ring a bell?), not the origin of life.

Is that the way Darwin understood it?

What part of that are you having trouble understanding? I tell you what... you can have your miracle for the origin of life on earth... as long as you agree it has evolved since. Deal?

Reading a book from the beginning and not from the middle helps us to understand the book better. So yes, deal.

 

[Goonie]

This is entertaining in its silliness. Strawman VS strawman; like Celebrity Death Match without the deeper profundity. One argument pretends that an obviously observed and experienced event equates to suppositions about the unobserved and another pretends that the composition of the moon is thought to be cheese by someone other than Dr. Suess. Here is the question you need to ask yourself. Can you be 100% positive that natural forces and ONLY natural forces caused the universe to create itself? If you're wrong and there is a God you've been disrespecting all these years the consequence is a serious negative. If you believe in science enough to trust its laws which preclude the auto-generation of matter/energy, then you know that some external force is responsible for our existence.

The simple answer is that no one can be 100% certain of how the universe began, as many debates have made clear, and science would not claim, 'I don't know' is a perfectly good position. Indeed the flying spaghetti monster/god might be responsible but so can all those other gods, but my money is on naturalism and science, because no religion has presentedvconving evidence otherwse.

 

[Split Rock]

Is that the way Darwin understood it?

Yes.

Reading a book from the beginning and not from the middle helps us to understand the book better. So yes, deal.

OK. Now maybe Not_By-Chance will also agree.

 

[Gracchus]

If it didn't come from nothing, where exactly did it come from then if God didn't create it? Sounds like a miracle to me, but wait, we can't have miracles can we because that would imply a miracle maker.

What makes you think that there is any such thing as "nothing"?
Time begins and ends at the singularity. Think: Euler's Formula. [e^(ix) = cos(x) + i X sin(x)]
Let cos x be a space-like vector and sin(x) be a time-like vector (Which we perceive as a scalar), and we see that when space is maximized [cos (x) = 1] then time is minimized [sin(x) = 0], and since the function is continuous it is simply, lather, rinse, repeat. So, time has a beginning and space has a beginning but those are two separate points, and so there is always space-time.

 

[The Cadet]

If it didn't come from nothing, where exactly did it come from then if God didn't create it? Sounds like a miracle to me, but wait, we can't have miracles can we because that would imply a miracle maker.

Do you even understand what the concept of "nothing" means in quantum physics? It's not even clear if the concept is defined at all. Many models in fact hold that "nothing" is a physical impossibility, and given that time is just another dimension, "before the universe there was nothing" is sort of like "north of the north pole there were polar bears" - a nonsensical statement curtailed by the very definition of the terms.