Alright /his/ let's get some things straight about the cosmology of the universe.

>The Big Bang Theory
This says the universe was small and then started expanding. We can look back through telescopes and see as far as 13.8 billion years back. This is only sets the minimum age of the universe. It could be a trillion years old for all we know.
The big bang theory does not say the universe began to exist out of nothing.

It is entirely possible that the universe is eternal in fact it's the most likely thing.

>We can look back through telescopes and see as far as 13.8 billion years back
Think of it like this you are standing on a road in the fog and you can see a mile down the road before the fog obscures your visibility. So given that you can say the road is at least a mile long but it could be much longer.

>>17828896 (OP)
>It could be a trillion years old for all we know.
The problem is you've crossed into the realm of speculation.
>It is entirely possible that the universe is eternal in fact it's the most likely thing.
There is no scientific reason to think so.

>>17829470
Unless there is scientific evidence of the universe not being eternal, the fact that we don't have scientific evidence for it being eternal is not a reason to believe there is a starman waiting in the sky who'd like to come and meet us but who thinks he'd blow our minds.

>>17828896 (OP)
Glad to see that Atheists are still on the cope...50 years later

>>17829489
Oh, wait, it's actually almost 100 years now.
100 years since a single priest BTFO the scientific community

>Kurt Wise, educated in paleontology at Harvard University, is one of the most creative thinkers in the modern creationist movement. He noted that the sequence of plants in the fossil record was exactly what evolution would predict. Plants began at their shortest and least complex and gradually became taller and more complex. He noted, however, that the order of plant fossils also described an order of plants which lived in the sea to plants that lived in the land. Asking whether any such ecological order was present in the modern world, he realized that this order is exactly what one finds in “quaking bogs.” A quaking bog is a small, floating mat of plants which becomes thicker as one moves towards the center. In the center, one finds trees which actually grow on this mat and whose roots extend into the water. The roots, therefore, are not deep, but extend below the mat and expand outwards. What Kurt Wise discovered is that the order of plants in the fossil record reveals that before the Flood, there was a massive quaking bog the size of a continent, which Wise calls the “floating forest.” Indeed, the trees that one finds in the fossil record are actually hollow, which made them lighter and more able to float on this large mat. While hollow trees are extinct today, other sorts of hollow plants have survived in quaking bogs. Furthermore, the well-known “fish-with-legs” fossils are found in this context. These appear to be, not evolutionary transitions, but animals which lived on the floating forest and were therefore capable of walking around on the plant mat and swimming below its surface.
https://orthochristian.com/93210.html

>>17829470
>There is no scientific reason to think so.
There is; energy is not created nor destroyed so it's a small step to claim the energy in the universe was always there

>>17829495
>op talks about the big bang
>christschizo starts screeching something about evolution
How come they have such a difficult time differentiating between the two?

>>17829495
>Scientists associated with the RATE project have also made substantial progress in understanding why radiometric dating methods tend to give old ages. Radiometric dating works by measuring the relative amounts of certain chemicals in rocks. “Radiometric decay” is when one chemical gradually turns into another chemical over time. This occurs at a constant rate, so, if one sees the relative amounts of the chemical in a rock, one should hypothetically be able to find when the rock formed. However, whenever radiometric decay occurs, helium is released into the rock. Helium is a leaky chemical, meaning that it escapes the rock relatively quickly. A certain amount of radiometric decay will always generate a certain amount of helium. Hence, if all of this radiometric decay occurred millions of years ago, it should nearly all be gone. If it happened at a different rate a few thousand years ago, there should be a predictable amount of helium left in the rocks. What the scientists working on the RATE project did is to take these rocks and predict precisely how much helium should be left in them, given the creationist model. They published the predictions before receiving the results of the experiments, and then they sent the rocks to secular labs so that secular scientists could do the experiments. The creationist prediction was confirmed with flying colors.

>>17829513
>The same is true with respect to the decay of our magnetic field. Our magnetic field is decaying at a particular rate. Given the present rate of decay, the magnetic field would be prohibitively strong just 20,000 years ago. In order to deal with this conundrum, secular scientists have developed a “dynamo” theory of the magnetic field which allows for its strength to increase and decrease over time. Reversals of the polarities of the magnetic field, in this model, can only occur over a period of about a thousand years. Russell Humphreys, a creationist physicist, developed an alternative model for the magnetic field, based on a young age for the earth. According to Humphreys, the magnetic field is generated by the circulation of electrons in the mantle of the earth. Humphreys’ model allows for reversals of the field to occur in as little time as two weeks. When he developed the model in the 1980s, he predicted that short-term reversals of the field would be observed. Only a few years later, his predictions were confirmed. Additionally, NASA published predictions about the rates of planetary magnetic fields given the dynamo model, which would then be measured by the Cassini-Huygens spaceprobe. Russell Humphreys published predictions based on his own model shortly afterwards. When the measurements were made, NASA’s predictions were falsified and Humphreys’ were confirmed.

>>17829509
Those two and abiogenesis are based on the same presuppositions, namely uniformitarianism. I can see where there's a connection.

>>17829513
Radiometric decay doesn't use helium; who even wrote this bs?

>>17829516
>I further discovered that problems with older creationist models were not true of newer creationist models. Take the issue of the entire fossil record being laid down by the Flood. Contemporary creationists no longer believe this. Instead, they argue that the Paleozoic layers were laid down before the Flood, largely on the third day of creation, that the Mesozoic layers were layed down in the Flood, and that the Cenozoic layers were laid down as the Earth rocked back from the geological upheaval of the Flood. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the so-called transitional fossils are found in the Cenozoic. There is actually a good series of horse transitional fossils. However, creationist biologist Todd Wood has developed a model for extremely rapid diversification of animal and plant life after the Flood. According to Wood, God created all “kinds” (called a baramin in creationist literature) with natural potentialities for diversification. There are various “switches” in the animal which turn on and off certain features. God made life so that it could develop and change, but the mechanism of this change is not primarily mutation and natural selection. Wood’s argument accounts for much of what we see in the late fossil record, and this newer model of the Flood solves many of the older problems with Flood geology.

>None of this is to say that creationist scientists have solved all of the problems with young-earth models. Not by a long shot. But it is to say that the amount of progress made by traditional Christian scientists, given their small number and relative lack of funding, is impressive, and is very promising as to the ultimate profitability of a scientific model faithful to Scripture.

>>17829519
That's the basis of all science, the big bang and evolution are completely different things that don't imply eachother in any way

>>17829523
>Instead, they argue that the Paleozoic layers were laid down before the Flood, largely on the third day of creation

>we made something up we can't prove in any way

>>17829500
Doesn't work that way, lul
First off, energy wasn't "always there". As far as quantum mechanics are concerned, it is possible to create matter out of nothing *so long as an equal amount of anti-matter was created as well. It is believed that during the first onset of the Big Bang, this did occur wherein matter and anti-matter were created spontatiously, cancelling each other out. But, for some reason, .001% of matter outnumbered the anti-matter.

Secondly, the existence of energy does not explain the existence of laws and order. Among all the 4 fundamental forces of the universe, Gravity was the first to be born. It was born at the exact 10^-43 seconds before the Big bang
And its measurement was so accurate, so precise, that it was calculated that had Gravity been weaker/stronger by just 10^-36%, the universe would immediately collapse/dissipitate

To give you an idea of how accurate that measurement was:
The entire observable universe is 10^32 meters in diameter.
That's exactly like me saying that had the Solar System been short/extra by 1 single dust, everything would immediately collapse into a blackhole

That's how accurate it was
And there is no explanation for its existence. Other than the obvious fact that...well, God is the greatest engineer

>>17829523
A creationist can just believe in the ruin-reconstruction model.

>>17829537
>As far as quantum mechanics are concerned, it is possible to create matter out of nothing

No this is wrong; cthere is no creation ex nihilo in qm, there is always a convertion of energy

>>17829537
>Secondly, the existence of energy does not explain the existence of laws and order.
That's an enirely different subject

>>17829541
Matter-antimatter asymmetry problem

>>17829537
>And its measurement was so accurate, so precise, that it was calculated that had Gravity been weaker/stronger by just 10^-36%, the universe would immediately collapse/dissipitate

Arguments from fine tuning always fail becaise you need to assume the current form of the universe was the desired result

>>17829550
And it is.
WE are the desired result.
The entire expanse of the universe is meaningless compared to a single human soul

>>17829546
That's another subject; can you stay one one thing without pivoting? Do you understand there is no creation out of nothing in qm?

>>17829551
You would have to prove that first before just asserting it

>>17829553
Yes there is *so long as equal amount of anti-matter was created and they annihilate each other simultaneously

It is the same logic that allows Blackholes to evaporate via Hawking Radiation

>>17829555
Ok
He came in the flesh of a man, not animal, not rock. Human

>>17829556
No there is not; we know energy can be converted in to matter, no one ever said qm has creation out of nothing; you clearly are not familir with the subject.

Hawking radiation is not creation out of nothing, refrain from talking sbout things youbdo not understand

>>17829557
Another assertion without proof

>>17829560
Heh

>>17829566
I accept your concession.

>>17828896 (OP)
Oh sweet, another schizo cosmology evolutionism vs creationism thread. For the christians who are critical of evolution, I recommend pic related and in general everything from Dr. Wolfgang Smith on this topic, he has multiple books which deal not only with a critique of modern scientism but also with redescovering the wisdom of ancient cosmology. I also have a his/lit centered discord server if anyone wants to join but no redditors please. https://discord.gg/Jjmy69DF

>>17829569

>>17829560
>Hawking radiation is not creation out of nothing
Ok, allow me to elaborate on this
Basically, because Blackholes are the ultimate gravitational well, it is impossible to escape it
However, QM allows for something called Pair Production wherein a photon can break down into a pair of positron and electron
The same logic applies in Blackholes wherein its energy can undergo the same breakdown of positive-negative pair
But due to the density of the BH, the negative energy cannot escape whereas the positive energy can in the form Hawking Radiation

This allows the Blackhole to lose energy over time without breaking Quantum Physics.
However, this is an extremely long process as Hawking Radiation can easily be the weakest energy in the entire universe. It's so weak that we are incapable of creating machines that are sensitive enough to detect it

>>17829572
Again; that is not creation from nothing, you don't understand this stuff

>>17829583
That is again not creation from nothing, youbare really bad Ast this

>>17828896 (OP)
>>17829571
pic related is probably Wolfgang Smith's magnum opus on physics, I'll post the description from amazon:
>The present book, which appeared in an earlier version as Part I of the last-named, includes arresting new material on the metaphysics of the integral cosmos. Smith accomplishes a magnificent re-integration of the physical sciences into a worldview banished in the West since the Enlightenment yet perfectly accommodative of every legitimate discovery of science. So far from constituting a kind of academic, or nostalgic curiosity, however, that long-forgotten worldview proves to be precisely what is needed to resolve the quandary of the so-called quantum paradox, which has stymied theoretical physicists since the year 1927! The implications of this text, which re-evaluates Einstein’s relativism as well as epistemologies falsely based on the Galilean/Cartesian notion of “secondary qualities,” restores the ontological realism of the world as we behold it, and—perhaps most shockingly—restores geocentrism as well, in its profoundest sense.

>>17829480
The universe literally cannot become immortal
First off, given enough time, every particle in the universe can undergo particle decay

Uranium 238 decays into Thorium 234 and Helium4. Because of their short halflifes, we can record this easily
But it is also believed that even something as stable as carbon or even Hydrogen itself could eventually decay into individual pockets of photons.

And photons itself can eventually decay into positron and electron. Thus leading into the Heat Death of the universe

If, however, photons do not decay, then, eventually, gravity would take over and cause quantum particles to eventually turn into individual packets of blackholes

Either way, the universe is not, and cannot be eternal

We are currently living at the perfect time in the universe
Not too energetic for radiation
Energetic enough to still watch new stars born
At the tail end of the Milky Way where the sky is dark enough to see it all
With a Sun that is easily the most stable star ever discovered

>>17828896 (OP)
>It could be a trillion years old for all we know.
Doesn't work that way
Time started at the Big Bang

>>17828896 (OP)
>Christians listen up
Yo.
>The big bang theory does not say the universe began to exist out of nothing.
We're aware. But the cosmological question remains - either there is or isn't a reason for its existence. If there is, the prime mover is the most immediate conclusion. If there isn't, you'd have to prove why this rational universe is based on an irrational starting point, and this frankly takes more faith than theism.

>It is entirely possible that the universe is eternal in fact it's the most likely thing.
Curiously, Thomas Aquinas (I hope it wasn't Avicenna, they both go the same direction) conceded that this might be the point. And he explicitly notes that it's not a problem for the prime mover argument.

>>17828896 (OP)
>>17829470
>>17829489
>>17829493
The quantum eternity theorem literally requires that the universe is eternal in both time directions and untreated. Poi care invariable and positive cosmological constant also imply it is infinite >>17829551
This is nothing more than cope.

>>17830545
Poincare*

>>17830545
All you've done is show that you can think of a model with those characteristics, not that it's real.

>>17830545
Sorry, lad, but "made in God's Image" is not a joke

>>17829597
>Energetic enough to still watch new stars born
show new stars please.

>>17830600
Interstellar clouds

>>17828896 (OP)
I don't believe in the big bang theory because it was invented by a Christian

>>17829489
You are just wrong

>>17830625
those are not new stars.
those are clouds.