Time and evolution

[JohnR7]

What was here before time began, or what was here before evolution began?
Evolutionist always say you have to have something to evolved, so where did that something come from?

 

[lemmings]

“What was here before time began,”

What is “North of the North Pole”? This has been one of science's’ greatest mystery since we discovered the Big Bang.

“what was here before evolution began?”

Evolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created. Thus there where no imperfect replicators prior to evolution.

“so where did that something come from?”

The Big Bang? We don’t know. The Earth? We do know.

The Earth came from the collisions between countless asteroids in the early solar system. The material that made these asteroids came from supernova explosions where the extreme pressure and heat fused lighter atoms together to form those that we see today.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

um ..
God Did it..

...

 

[aerophagicbricolage]

What was here before time began, or what was here before evolution began?

This question is meaningless.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What was here before time began, or what was here before evolution began?

Once again you demonstrate that you know nothing of evolution despite all of the attempts on this board of people to educate you.
Those are two totally different questions. Evolution starts with the arrival of the first replicators, the universe was in existance long before then.
What was there before the big bang? Who knows? I don't and neither do scientists. It is something that all the evidence for it is long gone, so we don't know.

Evolutionist always say you have to have something to evolved, so where did that something come from?

The first replicators came from some chemical process, there are several models as to what form those processes took. The simplest replicators we see today are in several ways more similar to macromolecules than the simplest cellular life.
Again your question is flawed because it is really asking two questions, origin of life and origin of universe. Where the big bang came from, who knows? The big bang theory does explain lots of phenomena such as background microwave radiation and the expansion of the universe.

 

[FoeHammer]

What is “North of the North Pole”? This has been one of science's’ greatest mystery since we discovered the Big Bang.

Evolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created. Thus there where no imperfect replicators prior to evolution.

Hmmm interesting choice of word ''created'' care to elaborate?

The Big Bang? We don’t know. The Earth? We do know.

The Earth came from the collisions between countless asteroids in the early solar system. The material that made these asteroids came from supernova explosions where the extreme pressure and heat fused lighter atoms together to form those that we see today.

Pure speculation.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

This question is meaningless.

Why?

FoeHammer.

 

[Danhalen]

Why?

FoeHammer.

There is no such thing as "before time."

 

[FoeHammer]

There is no such thing as "before time."

So where did time come from?

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

What was here before time began

What is left of the leftmost point you can ever get to?
Where was space created?
Time cannot begin, because to begin implies that there was a time prior and a time after the beginning. Without time, that can't be.

or what was here before evolution began?

Stuff. Planets, stars, rocks. Atoms, molecules. Specifically, organic molecules.

Evolutionist always say you have to have something to evolved, so where did that something come from?

It doesn't really matter to evolution, but modern biology has a few hypotheses regarding abiogenesis - how what we'd describe as living might come from simple organic molecules.

 

[Sleeker]

There is no such thing as "before time."

Liar.

So where did time come from?

FoeHammer.

Time doesn't have location, therefore, there is no "where." Time has a "when." "When" did time start is easy: at the beginning.

 

[TeddyKGB]

So where did time come from?

It doesn't matter. "Before" implicitly denotes time.

In any case, time is a fundamental part of the universe. It began "when" the universe began.

 

[FishFace]

So where did time come from?

When is left?
How many blue?
Who is Tuesday?
Why is six?
What is not?
Where did time come from?

You should be sensing a theme. In case you aren't, it's that they're all nonsense.

 

[humbledbyhim]

What is “North of the North Pole”? This has been one of science's’ greatest mystery since we discovered the Big Bang.



Evolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created. Thus there where no imperfect replicators prior to evolution.



The Big Bang? We don’t know. The Earth? We do know.

The Earth came from the collisions between countless asteroids in the early solar system. The material that made these asteroids came from supernova explosions where the extreme pressure and heat fused lighter atoms together to form those that we see today.

That would be assuming that you agree with uniformitarianism, the underlying assumption of physics and geology.

 

[us38]

That would be assuming that you agree with uniformitarianism, the underlying assumption of physics and geology.

Along with everyday living. Can't forget that one.

 

[TeddyKGB]

That would be assuming that you agree with uniformitarianism, the underlying assumption of physics and geology.

And we all know how badly that has turned out for technology and our overall body of knowledge.

 

[humbledbyhim]

Along with everyday living. Can't forget that one.

Uniformitarianisn:

"Uniformitarianism is one of the most basic principles of modern geology, the observation that fundamentally the same geological processes that operate today also operated in the distant past. It exists in contrast with catastrophism, which states that Earth surface features originated suddenly in the past, by geological processes radically different to those currently occurring. Note, however, that many "catastrophic" events are perfectly compatible with uniformitarianism. For example, Charles Lyell thought that ordinary geological processes would cause Niagara Falls to move upstream to Lake Erie within 10000 years, leading to catastrophic flooding of a large part of North America.
Uniformitarianism is a generalisation of the principle of actualism, which states that present day-processes (astronomical, geological, paleontological,...) can be used to interpret past patterns. It is also known as "the present is the key to the past". The principle of actualism is the cornerstone of paleoecology."
Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption. Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.

 

[humbledbyhim]

And we all know how badly that has turned out for technology and our overall body of knowledge.

Just because a model fits the facts and allows for further development, it doesn't mean that the the model is true. Many people, including myself seek truth, and scientifically defined fact, especially when based on assumptions that I don't agree with, are not sufficient for me.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Uniformitarianisn:

[definition of uniformitarianism]

Show me some observations taken and examined billiions of years ago that verify this. In other words, since no one was there to observe past universal laws, uniformitarianism will continue to be an assumption.

Indeed. No-one has ever claimed it was anything other than an assumption. However, it is by a long shot the most probable assumption we can make. Since all recorded and verifiable observations ever made conform to the principle, and none has ever demonstrated a unique area of spacetime where the physical laws are different, then we can be fairly (i.e., beyond a shadow of a doubt) sure that the principle is sound.

You understand, of course, that if we reject the principle, then empiricism collapses and we fall into an intellectual stupour? Axioms and fundamentals exist so that we can progress beyond them.

I don't suppose you can give us a pragmatic reason to reject the assumption? The last appeal of the literalist and the religious fundamentalist is the rejection of reality.

Or perhaps you advocate we go all the way? As individuals with private thoughts, we only know, truely know, three things: the laws of logic, the fact that we recieve sensory input, and the fact that we exist. I do not know my computer exists, for it is remotely possible that my senses are manipulated.

However, it is absurd (not to mention useless) to reject the assumption that the sensory input I recieve is at least a semi-accurate portrayal of the 'real' reality.

Likewise, we assume the physical laws are not arbitrarily and unpredictably tampered with by an external entity or force.

Finally, there is also the question of: if the principle is false, then why do palaeontological predictions bear out? Indeed, why do all dating methods correlate? Surely the past, if it is indeed subject to different laws as today, would yield incomprehensible abominations that would defy explanation?

Yea, I'm not sure how well that flows, it's late. But it's right.

Of course the lives and dignity of millions of people rest on this assumption, so I don't suspect that it will ever be challenged by any prominent secular authority to seriously challenge it.

On the contrary, the nature of reality and the laws inherent therein are richly debated by philosophers and scientists alike (me and you being but one pair).

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution began when the first imperfect replicators, AKA cells, where created.

Created? So evolution begins after creation?