Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 61 of 537 (915918)
02-20-2024 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ICANT
02-17-2024 9:07 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
And you think that little pea sized universe had enough energy packed into it to create every thing in 2 trillion Galaxies + how many more trillion may be out there.
What you can't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter what we think or believe. What matters is what the evidence demonstrates, and it clearly demonstrates that all of the energy in the universe was once in a very, very small area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 9:07 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 12:24 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 62 of 537 (915919)
02-20-2024 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ICANT
02-17-2024 8:48 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
Every time they work on the telescope the known universe gets bigger.
False. The size of the universe has been about the same for many decades now.
What has changed is estimated number of galaxies within the universe. The size of the universe has not changed. As telescopes get more and more sensitive they are able to detect dimmer and dimmer galaxies, hence the increase.
The problem is that scientist can only fathom the universe being only 13.8 billion years old.
In the same way, NASA scientists can't fathom an Earth with a diameter of 15 billion miles. Why? Because the Earth isn't that big.
The reason scientists have arrived at 13.8 billion years is because of measurements, just as measurements led to our current estimation of the diameter of Earth.
quote:
Measurements by the WMAP satellite can help determine the age of the universe. The detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations depends on the current density of the universe, the composition of the universe and its expansion rate. As of 2013, WMAP determined these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 1.5%. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!
WMAP- Age of the Universe
If you want to claim that age is wrong, then show how the measurements and math are wrong. "I just can't believe it" is not evidence.
If you remember back in 2008 I made the statement 'I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not necessarily as we see it today'.

I haven't changed my mind.
Reality doesn't care what you believe. There are people who believed in 2008 that the Earth is flat. They still believe that. The Earth is still a globe.
That is one thing Einstein was correct about believing the universe always existed. If he could have met me after 1950 before he Died I would have made him a happy man.
Einstein also called that his worst mistake.
If you want to convince us that we are wrong about the age of the unvierse then you are going to have to explain three sets of data:
1. The consistent correlation between galactic redshift and the distance to those galaxies.
2. The cosmic microwave background. Both its temperature and power spectrum.
3. The ratio of light isotopes in the universe.
quote:
Evidence for the Big Bang
1. Redshift of Galaxies
The light we observe from galaxies has been stretched by the time it reaches us. It looks redder than it should. This redshift is the result of galaxies moving away from us. Observations show that pretty much everything in the Universe is moving apart. The redshift of distant galaxies tells us the Universe is expanding.
If you could wind time backwards, you would see galaxies getting closer together. If you could go back far enough, everything in the Universe would have been in one place.
2. Microwave Background
A long, long time ago, the whole Universe was very hot. As it grew in the size, the heat left a "glow" which fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory predicts this glow should still exist. It also predicts that we should be able to detect this glow as microwave light.
Scientist have found this Cosmic Microwave Background. They have accurately measured it using orbiting detectors. It is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.
3. Mixture of Elements
Some chemical elements were created soon after the Big Bang. Elements like hydrogen and helium. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element was made in the early universe. When astronomers look at very old galaxies and stars, the amount of each chemical they see agrees with the Big Bang theory.
Evidence for the Big Bang | The Schools' Observatory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ICANT, posted 02-17-2024 8:48 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 63 of 537 (915921)
02-20-2024 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ICANT
02-19-2024 8:41 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
All science is trying to do is prove that God was not necessary to exist.
Baloney. Here is the guy who founded the Big Bang Theory:
Hint: He's the guy in the middle
That's George Lemaitre, and he was a Jesuit priest. He was the first to publish on the Big Bang Theory.
You may want to look around today's Christian world of theology. You seem to be in the minority position where discovering a natural process somehow indicates that God is not involved. It would seem that germs causing disease and natural processes producing weather would be much more serious problems for your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ICANT, posted 02-19-2024 8:41 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 12:28 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 66 of 537 (915924)
02-20-2024 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
02-20-2024 12:24 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Phat writes:
Well, we cant conflate evidence(tentative) with belief. What we can do is speculate.
We can also measure.
If I CANT has a point, it is that the vast energy that is involved in the origin of the universe went from virtually infinitely small to infinitely vast, God (as Creator) would be the source of that energy.
For the moment, let's just grant the supposition that the energy at the beginning of the universe came from God. How does that change the age of the universe? How does it change any of the evidence for the Big Bang Theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 12:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 12:35 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 68 of 537 (915926)
02-20-2024 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phat
02-20-2024 12:35 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Phat writes:
It really doesnt. The only point of contention between you and ICANT might be what qualifies as evidence.
From everything I have seen, ICANT rejects the Big Bang Theory even if it is granted that God created the energy found at the beginning of the process. ICANT thinks that his intuitive beliefs trump scientific observations. That seems to be the hurdle.
I never try and learn sciencee from the Bible, but I dont think it to be a futile attempt in totality. After all, whom better to ask about evidence than the the One who is *evident* in your heart and mind?
Most people have found that it is better to ask reality how reality is put together. Your method hasn't had the best results:
quote:
But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures….
--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
Either you believe that the Earth doesn't move as the Bible states or you believe in the satanic Heliocentrism, I guess.
Percy mentions that believers arrive(often) at different conclusions than non believers. One would think that the evidence remains the same.
That's false. ICANT refuses to address any of the evidence for the Big Bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 02-20-2024 12:35 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2024 9:36 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 80 of 537 (915976)
02-21-2024 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by ICANT
02-20-2024 9:36 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
But why would we need a big bang to start with it causes too many problems.
You are trying to tell reality how it works based on how you want it to work. That's not how science is done.
The evidence shows that the universe started as described in the Big Bang Theory. Whether we like it or not, that's what the evidence is showing us actually happened.
But that will never happen because to most of them God does not exist.
Both the believing and non-believing astrophysicists agree on the accuracy of the Big Bang Theory.
What you are describing applies to all of nature. What applies to the BBT also applies to meteorology. Believers still believe God is involved in weather even if weather can be described using natural processes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ICANT, posted 02-20-2024 9:36 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 2:08 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 86 of 537 (915993)
02-21-2024 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
02-21-2024 2:08 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
No. I am telling you how reality worked.

There was no bang in the big bang to start with.
What evidence are you going from? Or are you just pronouncing what reality is without any foundation in evidence?
How do you think God works?
I don't believe in God, so I don't have an opinion on the matter.
If you have believed what some quacks have said you probably think He just waved a wand and everything instantly appeared.
I have yet to see any evidence as to where the energy came from, so I simply say I don't know. All we do know is that it was there at the beginning of the universe.
Well God does not work that way. It took a long time to create the earth much less the universe. But He had eternity to work on it.

God set natural laws in effect and they are still operating today I see people talking about natural laws all the time and they just think they happened that would be magic.
If we start the clock at the beginning of our universe, there is a 13.8 billion year limit to get where we are today from that initial condition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 2:08 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 7:59 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(2)
Message 98 of 537 (916005)
02-21-2024 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
02-21-2024 5:15 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Phat writes:
Conduct a scientific experiment that makes these two groups at odds with each other.

Is one group any dumber? Is one group (as a group) somehow willfully ignorant? Are they zombies? Does the other group look at the idea of God any differently than the first group?
Galileo already did this type of experiment, or rather this scenario.
quote:
Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together. Here, at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy, whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, [telescope] which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? what shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! and to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa laboring before the grand duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.
--Galileo Galilei
The philosophers (i.e. theologians) waxed on and on about how illogical Galileo's Heliocentric model was. However, those same philosophers refused to look at the evidence through Galileo's telescope.
So how would you describe those theologians? Stupid? Willfully ignorant?
Personally, I don't think they were stupid. They were probably intelligent guys. However, they were willfully ignorant given their refusal to look at the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 02-21-2024 5:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 100 of 537 (916007)
02-21-2024 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Phat
02-21-2024 5:20 PM


Re: By the Numbers
Phat writes:
Wow! So you and I are both on the sidelines munching popcorn! You are waiting to *see* Jesus and I am waiting for AZ to explain how science destroys the Christian mind virus.
No one said anything about science destroying the Christian mind virus.
What happened is that ICANT tried a bait switch. He tried to conflate a consensus of scientists with a consensus of apologists. Those aren't the same thing. A consensus of scientists is based on objective evidence and successful experimental predictions. A consensus of apologists is neither of those things. Christian apologetics in itself is quite the mess, but it really isn't meant for non-believers anyway.
However, for the purposes of moving this thread along, everyone seems willing to concede that Jesus was a historical person. What we want to see is the evidence that Jesus produced the energy present at the beginning of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Phat, posted 02-21-2024 5:20 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 118 of 537 (916036)
02-22-2024 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
02-21-2024 7:59 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
Science.
What science?
That's my problem with the BBT It has no place the energy can come from to begin expanding to start with.
Then you must also have a problem with many other theories in science because they don't have a place where that energy came from. Germ theory doesn't have a place for the origin of that energy. Atom theory does not explain that origin. The theory of relativity doesn't attempt to explain it. It would seem that you reject all of science.
According to science there is nothing outside the little pea sized universe that came from nothing.
There are many different theories out there, some of which have other universes outside our own.
Your clock is running slow they have already started talking over 28 billion years old since the last discovery of billions of Galaxies existing.
What are you talking about???? Discovering more galaxies doesn't increase the age of the universe.
And that is not as far as it goes back. Thats just what is visible now.
The initial expansion of our universe is as far as it goes back for our universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 02-21-2024 7:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2024 12:49 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 121 of 537 (916042)
02-22-2024 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ICANT
02-22-2024 12:49 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
Why would I need to know where any of those things energy came from. Don't they all exist in the universe?
You tell me. This is the requirement you have put on every single scientific theory. If a theory doesn't explain where the energy in the universe came from then you have a problem with it.
Doesn't the universe have all the energy necessary to produce everything in it ?
So they all have an energy source.

The universe is what does not have a source for its energy.
The source of energy for the universe is the very same source as that used in Germ Theory, Atom Theory, and the Theory of Relativity.
Hypothesis are not theories they are only the assumptions of man or his imagination.
Then what were you going on about when you said:
"According to science there is nothing outside the little pea sized universe that came from nothing."
quote:
Early universe observations by the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cannot be explained by current cosmological models. These models estimate the universe to be 13.8 billion years in age, based on the big-bang expanding universe concept.

My research proposes a model that determines the universe's age to be 26.7 billion years, which accounts for the JWST's "impossible early galaxy" observations.

Impossible early galaxies refer to the fact that some galaxies dating to the cosmic dawn—500 to 800 million years after the big bang—have disks and bulges similar to those which have passed through a long period of evolution. And smaller in size galaxies are apparently more massive than larger ones, which is quite the opposite of expectation.
The other explanations are:
1. An incorrect assumption about the average size of stars in early galaxies. Currently, they are using the distribution of star size in the Milky Way in their calculations for early galaxies, but early galaxies may have a different distribution in star sizes.
2. An incorrect model of early galaxy formation.
We are nowhere close to needing an adjustment in the age of the universe based on these observations.
I didn't know it had stopped expanding when did it do that?
I thought it was getting bigger all the time.
You are only getting older, so does that mean you are infinitely old? Or, do you have an age?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2024 12:49 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 02-23-2024 10:25 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 127 of 537 (916048)
02-22-2024 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
02-22-2024 3:00 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
I still believe he was right to start with.
He was wrong as shown by all of the evidence demonstrating an expanding universe.
Since energy can not be created it has had to exist eternally in the past. The universe was created from material that energy produced. Thus the universe is eternal. Will it end? Yes it will melt with fervent heat which science agrees with.
If the universe is eternal then it couldn't have been created because the act of creation is a starting point.
Also, science states that the universe will die because of the disappearance of heat, otherwise called heat death.
I am told constantly that hot little dense thing created the universe, with no proof of it's existence.
If that is what you think, then you aren't listenting. The universe itself was hot and dense. The hot, dense thing didn't create the universe. It was the universe.
Somehow in my mind that don't compute. Space all around us is moving at the speed of light but we are not moving with that space how is that possible.
My understanding is that spacetime is a metric, so it can't move. However, particles can move through space. What we are seeing is an increase in the amount of spacetime between us and distant galaxies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 02-22-2024 3:00 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 137 of 537 (916078)
02-23-2024 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by ICANT
02-23-2024 9:17 AM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
Now as that space began to expand between those little somethings each little somethings on exact opposite outsides by the time the first atom formed would be 2,228,964,480,000,000,000 quad driillion miles from the starting point
The size of the universe after the initial inflation was about 10-15 light years. So imagine jamming all of the matter from those billions of galaxies into an area that is now taken up by just a handful of galaxies.
quote:
when matter (normal and dark, combined) began dominating radiation in the Universe, the Universe was about ~10,000 years old, and about 10 million light-years in radius,
when the Universe was only about 100,000 light-years in diameter, roughly the size of the Milky Way galaxy, the Universe was only ~3 years old,
if we step back to when the Universe was ~1 year old, not only was it smaller than the Milky Way is today, but it was incredibly hot: about 2 million K, or almost hot enough to initiate nuclear fusion,
when the Universe was merely ~1 second old, it was actually too hot for nuclear fusion to occur, since any heavy nuclei created would immediately be blasted apart by an energetic collision, and the Universe would have only been about 10 light-years in any direction from you: enough to enclose just the 9 nearest known star systems to our own.
and if we went all the way back to when the Universe was merely a trillionth of a second old — 1 part in 1012 — we’d find that it was only the size of Earth’s orbit around the Sun, or 1 astronomical unit (A.U.), and that the Universe’s expansion rate at that time was a whopping 1029 times what it is right now, today.
Error Page
Now if space is expanding between each of these little somethings at the speed of light
Nowhere in the visible universe is any galaxy moving away from us at the speed of light. If they were we wouldn't be able to see them.
That really sounds preposterous to me.
Your made up Big Bang Theory is preposterous which is probably why it is not the Big Bang Theory that scientists use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 9:17 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 2:00 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 147 of 537 (916090)
02-23-2024 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
02-23-2024 2:00 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
It was also 372,000 miles in diameter in any direction from the starting point.
There is no starting point. Space itself expanded, everywhere.
In 380,000 years the universe was 4,460,982,336,000,000,000 miles in diamerer
This is when the first atom formed.
I will agree that is when the first atoms with a nuclei and electrons formed. Prior to that there was plasma which had mass and would have been clumping together through gravity well before the first full atoms formed. That is what we see in the fluctuations in the CMB.
Now if I am wrong and that energy that was one billionth of the size of an atom
did not expand as space expanded then that energy would still be in the same place.
There would have been a limited period of inflation that was faster than the speed of light. That changed quite quickly, and matter was still quite dense during this time. Gravity was easily able to allow that matter to interact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 2:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 9:03 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 228 of 537 (916191)
02-26-2024 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by ICANT
02-23-2024 9:03 PM


Re: By the Numbers
ICANT writes:
You mean that hot 1 billionth of the size of an atom thing that expanded into the universe did not have a location it existed? Is that what you are saying?

To me it would have to be the center of the universe as space expanded in every direction from that hot little dense spot.
As discussed by others, the universe itself was the size of an atom, and it was filled with energy. They universe expanded EVERYWHERE and took the energy with it. We are still within that area of space that expanded outward. We are still within that universe that started out the size of an atom. Nowhere in the universe is there an area of spacetime that started outside that atom size universe.
The CMB (cosmic microwave background) is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities,
The CMB is not the oldest light. It is the oldest light we can see. Before the CMB there was still light travelling around the universe, but it was quickly absorbed by plasma. The CMB marked the first era where light could travel for long distances without being absorbed.
"The universe began 13.8 billion years ago, and in its early years, it looked completely different than it does now. For nearly 400,000 years, the entire cosmos was opaque, which means we have no direct observations of anything that happened during that time."
Early Universe | Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian

They kind of disagree with you.
It is saying the very same thing I am saying. The universe was opaque, like on a foggy day. You couldn't see very far because light was quickly absorbed by plasma, just like you can't see very far in heavy fog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2024 9:03 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024