A new theory for the creation of the universe.

[Skwim]

Science starts in the present with a desired ending.

Nah, you're thinking of creationism.

.

 

[Ted Evans]

What you have mentioned above are all observable and measurable by a scientific method, but your deity isn't. And won't show up.

And that is your answer to the question where, when and how did the SMET came into existence? I cannot say that I am surprised.

 

[DavidFirth]

Basic problem is that there is unambiguous evidence that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years and the age of the current universe is 13.8 billion years. So, your theory, where earth was created on day 1 is falsified.

Actually, that is incorrect.

What if God created the universe 10,000 years ago in the state you find it today. Than all of your assumptions get thrown in the trash can. You can't assume the age of the Earth or the universe based on the calculations you're using because you have assumed the universe wasn't created 10,000 years ago in the state we find it in today.

 

[Ingledsva]

Why would anyone believe such a bunch of nonsense in the 21st century? For openers you're assuming a 'god' was the impetus to creation, so would you enlighten us as to where such a 'god' might have come from. Perhaps a momma goddess and a poppa god out there somewhere? And you have read all the book you're referring to I assume..... which to me reads like a manual for genocide. Research the concept of the 'ban'....... And even 'god' gets involved in the killing by throwing down chunks of ice on the Amalakites or someone I think I remember. Is it any more absurd to consider that possibly the universe has ALWAYS EXISTED? And there never was a 'creation'? That there are no devils or angels or trolls or unicorns. Time to come back to reality folks.......

What? There are no trolls? But they visit here all the time!

*

 

[Ted Evans]

Nah, you're thinking of creationism.

Really, what does "in the beginning" mean to you? What is the difference in "before" the BB and "after" the BB?

 

[Polymath257]

Really? Can you provide evidence that states those figures are indisputable facts? How is that time measured? What happens to your theory if there was no time dimension before the sun and intelligence to measure it? Unless, you can prove there was, can you?

All such measurements have error bars. The error bars for the age of the Earth give 4.54+-.05 billion years. The error bars on the age of the universe give 13.799+-.021 billion years.

So, for example, it is indisputable that the Earth is over 3 billion years old and less than 6 billion years old. It is indisputable that the universe is older than 12 billion years old and less than 15 billion years old. The bounds of indisputability is actually much less than this, but these are good enough to destroy your viewpoint.

For the Earth, time is measured in a number of different ways depending on radioactive decay with nuclei of different decay rates. The results are consistent.

For the universe, the time is determined by fitting to observations from the background radiation with models based on general relativity and thermodynamics. The background radiation is such that the models are very sensitive, which isssssch accuracy is possible on the age.

"The possibility that time may not exist is known among physicists as the “problem of time.”"

This is a problem way before the Earth was formed. In fact, it is a problem concerning whether it is meaningful to talk about 'before the universe'.

 

[sayak83]

Actually, that is incorrect.

What if God created the universe 10,000 years ago in the state you find it today. Than all of your assumptions get thrown in the trash can. You can't assume the age of the Earth or the universe based on the calculations you're using because you have assumed the universe wasn't created 10,000 years ago in the state we find it in today.

What if the devil created the universe yesterday with all memories and beliefs programmed into our heads to make us falsely believe we have existed long before that?
If evidence from nature and sense data is inherently deceptive then knowledge is impossible.

 

[DavidFirth]

What if the devil created the universe yesterday with all memories and beliefs programmed into our heads to make us falsely believe we have existed long before that?
If evidence from nature and sense data is inherently deceptive then knowledge is impossible.

No, it's not. Genesis explains it quite well.

 

[blü 2]

On the fourth day, He created [...] the sun [...] the moon. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension

Since change is impossible without time, and thought is nothing if not process / change, you seem to refute your own thesis at this point.

Since God is outside of time

Therefore no possibility of thought or action would exist.

Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural

I think it's more than reasonable, it's essential, that you demand an explanation reasoned honestly from empirical, examinable evidence. So it seems odd that you assume your own hypothesis doesn't need that kind of support. (You also need to accept that there remain many questions about which, at this stage, we can only speculate, eg did anything exist before the Big Bang and if so what? These aren't a gap to hide a god in, just works in progress of our understanding.)

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

Ahm, sorry, no. To do that, you can't assume that each and every event set out in Genesis is an accurate statement about reality ─ great mountains of the empirical evidence you mention say they're not.

So, for instance, our present best understanding, carefully and transparently reasoned from that evidence, is (contrary to Genesis) that the universe is ~14 billion years old, that stars had existed for ~9.3 billion years before the earth and our sun did, that our sun existed for ~4 billion years before plants did, that land animals existed from ~350 million years ago and birds came long after (archaeopteryx, the proto-bird, ~160 million years ago) ─ and a great deal more.

Check it out for yourself.

 

[sayak83]

No, it's not. Genesis explains it quite well.

Genesis is also a book deceptively created yesterday by the devil with your firm belief on it programmed by the devil inserted in your headwhen he created you yesterday.

 

[Ted Evans]

I find ALL of the 6 creative days are summed up by the word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4

False. I would be glad to engage in a Q&A type of discussion of the verse(s) line-by-line and word-by-word if you are interested.

“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.” (Genesis 2:4, NASB95)

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1, NASB95)

“God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:5, NASB95)

Yôm - day (sunset) n. — a unit of time from sunset until the next sunset; including evening and morning.


Gen 1:5, 8, 13–14, 19, 23, 31; 2:2–4, 17; 3:5; 4:14; 5:1–2; 6:5; 7:4, 10–11, 13, 17, 24; 8:3, 6, 10 …

Same word used in both verses.

 

[Polymath257]

Be glad to, just as soon as you enlighten me where, when and how, space, matter, energy and time came into existence, can you do that. Oh yeah, I would expect to see empirical scientific evidence for your answer.

And once again *we do not know*. But we *do* know the general outlines based on the science we do know. There are several different theories of quantum gravity that are relevant, but at this point we do not know which is correct.

Unlike religion, science is based on actual empirical evidence. And that means it can only speculate when such evidence hasn't been found. But, we *can* say what happened after the first millisecond or so into that expansion. But *that*, which *is* empirically verified, isn't something you care about. But any ideas about how things were before that stage have to be consistent with that stage.

Your hypothesis isn't consistent with a host of other things we know.

Get it?

 

[YmirGF]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe. It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter. It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe. The belief is there was no time dimension at this point and He could have created everything instantaneously but He chose to do it in steps to serve His purpose which was to set days, weeks, months and years for the people He would create later.

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

It seems to reason that He then made the firmament which separated the waters above it from the waters below and called that day two.

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night. Up until this event, there was no mechanism for measuring time, IOW, there was no time dimension, now it is in place and waiting for intelligence to measure it. This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

It is likely that He created the creatures in the waters and the birds of the sky on the fifth day. He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply, each after its own kind.

Most think it was day six when He created the living creatures on the earth, each after its own kind. Then He created man in His own image, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply and to rule over the fish, the birds and over every living creature that moves on the earth.

Even though day four saw a mechanism put in place for measuring time, it was not until day six after the universe was created that there was an instrument, intelligence, to measure time. Most seem to agree with this theory.

There is a difference of opinion on exactly what point the laws of nature were created, some believing it was day one and others think it more likely to be day four.

Since God is outside of time and it means nothing to Him, He had a purpose for using six days, in man’s time frame, for the creation.


“Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:9–11, NASB95)


Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

Tiny problem with this 'theory' is that there is no evidence to make the hypothesis a theory.
What you have bored us with is a hypothesis and not a very compelling one either.

 

[Deidre]

Science starts in the present with a desired ending.

Why can't God be behind the science? There is no beginning or ending to science, really. Even some scientists are suggesting this. Even God said ''I am the alpha and the omega.'' Why do you have a science vs faith mentality? Science and faith coexist, if you believe that God is behind the science.

 

[blü 2]

.

I'm glad my post kept you entertained.

Now all you need to do is check out the facts I gave you and amend your hypothesis so it fits reality.

Getting it right in the scientific manner you seek to emulate should be at least as entertaining!

 

[sayak83]

@Ted Evans
In summary.

Your theory fails as a scientific theory of the universe as it says earth and universe were created in the same day when observations from nature shows they began to exist around 13.8 billion years and 4.5 billion years ago respectively.

A simple way to calculate the age of the universe is to see how fast galaxies are receding from each other. This is shown below. This is a simple calculation, the actual Hubble parameter changes slowly over time and this change has been accurately measured and input in a more accurate calculation which provides 13.8 billion years as the age of the universe.

The Age of the Universe | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe

You can actually calculate an estimate for the age of the Universe from Hubble's Law. The distance between two galaxies is D. The apparent velocity with which they are separating from each other is v. At some point, the galaxies were touching, and we can consider that time the moment of the Big Bang. If you take the separation between the two galaxies (D) and divide that by the apparent velocity (v), that will leave you with how long it took for the galaxies to reach their current separation. The standard analogy here is to consider that you are now 300 miles from home. You drove 60 mph the entire time, so how long did it take you to get here? Well, 300 miles / 60 mph = 5 hours.

Three Steps to Measuring the Hubble Constant

This illustration shows the three steps astronomers used to measure the universe's expansion rate to an unprecedented accuracy, reducing the total uncertainty to 2.4 percent.

In contrast earth is 4.4-4.5 billion years old as determined by evidence of the rocks.

Confirmed: Oldest Fragment of Early Earth is 4.4 Billion Years Old


Well, scientists just took one of geology's biggest controversies and shrunk it down to atomic size. By zapping single atoms of lead in a tiny zircon crystal from Australia, researchers have confirmed the crystal is the oldest rock fragment ever found on Earth — 4.375 billion years old, plus or minus 6 million years.

"We've proved that the chemical record inside these zircons is trustworthy," said John Valley, lead study author and a geochemist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The findings were published today (Feb. 23) in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Valley and his co-authors hope to end the debate by showing that even though one of the oldest Jack Hills zircons suffered radiation damage, the lead atoms stayed in place. The researchers painstakingly counted individual lead atoms within the oldest-known zircon with a recently developed technique called atom-probe tomography. Inside the zircon, lead atoms clustered together in damage zones just a few nanometers wide. Imagine cliques of teens during high school lunch — like teenagers, no lead atoms had left their zones.

"We've demonstrated this zircon is a closed geochemical system, and we've never been able to do that before," Valley said. "There's no question that many zircons do suffer radiation damage, but I think relative to these zircons, this should settle it once and for all," Valley told Live Science's Our Amazing Planet.


The key finding, that lead atoms stick close to home inside this primeval zircon, means age estimates based on uranium-lead dating techniques are accurate, the researchers report. The lead hasn't wiggled around enough to throw off the ages. A typical age measurement, made with a machine called an ion probe, zaps zircon segments that are thousands of times larger than the damage clusters.

"This careful piece of work should settle the debate because it shows that indeed there is some mobility of lead, which was hypothesized to result in dates that were too old, but the scale of mobility is nanometers," said Samuel Bowring, a geochemist at MIT, who was not involved in the study. "Even the smallest volumes analyzed with the ion probe average out the heterogeneities," or variations within the zircon.

Hence scientific evidence falsifies your theory.

Of course you are free to say that observations from nature are not a reliable means to gain knowledge about reality. But if "nature is inherently deceptive" is your premise, then no science or knowledge based on ordinary day to day observation can be trusted to give us knowledge about reality. Such a worldview denies all of science and all of sensory knowledge and cannot be said to be a scientific theory.

 

[Stevicus]

Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

I don't think it necessarily proves anything though. I don't think anyone can prove how all of this came into existence. But I'm content to leave it to science to investigate and discover. If we don't know something, then we don't know. We might someday find out, but we don't know yet. I see no reason to become impatient and try to make up our own explanations without a shred of evidence.

Of course, it's always fun to speculate about these things. I suppose anything is possible, at least as far as speculating as to the supernatural origins of the universe.

However, I do find reason to be skeptical of any creation story which somehow makes the Earth the center of the universe. The Earth is just a tiny ball of dust in an average galaxy among millions (possibly even trillions) of galaxies. Humans are just like tiny amoeba. In any story about any hypothetical "Creator" of the universe, to make it more about humans seems to underwhelm - compared to the immense grandeur of the entire cosmos.

 

[Altfish]

I see you still don't understand the meaning of the word "Theory".

How many times do we have to explain it to you?

 

[Nakosis]

My entire point, science cannot validate where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence. Just like those of us that believe in the supernatural, God, we cannot prove when, where and how God came into existence. Using the scriptures as they are written has an explanation as to how the universe came into existence, science does not.
Not true, we can only use what is written.

Ok,

And why should we not at least consider the Vedic literature as evidence? It is the oldest, most voluminous, and most consistent body of literature known to man, and it contains information not only of the creative process, but of every science human society needs, including medicine, economics, and so on. By its comprehensive nature alone, the Vedic literature deserves serious study by researchers in every field.

Devotees of Krishna accept Vedic statements as evidence—as axiomatic truths—not due merely to the length and detail of the Vedic texts, but because the author of the Vedas is Krishna. In the Bhagavad-gita Krishna says, “By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” For the devotees, at least, statements made by the Absolute Truth are perfect evidence, irrefutable proof.
How He Creates | Krishna.com

 

[Valjean]

In the beginning, before anything known to mankind existed, there was a supernatural, intelligent being that created the universe.

"Once upon a time, long, long ago, there lived a magical King...."
See any similarity? You're basing a whole mythology on a folk tale.
Why is yours more authoritative than any of the hundreds of other creation stories from different cultures around the world?

It is thought that He first created space and then He created matter.

It's thought -- arrived at by reason and evidence -- or is it merely felt?
I suspect this would fall under "speculation."

It is likely that He supplied the energy from Himself to create the universe.

Could you outline the reasoning leading to this conclusion, por favor?

What would become to be known as day one, It is probable that He created the heavens and the earth and furnished light from Himself to set up day and night.

Why is this probable?

It could have happened on the third day when the waters below the firmament gathered together and for dry land to appear which He called earth. The best estimate is the earth brought forth vegetation, plants and trees bearing fruit after their kind.

On the fourth day, He created lights in the expanse to separate day from night and these were made to give light on earth. The great light, the sun, was to govern the day and the lesser light, the moon, was to govern the night.

So Earth, land, sea and vegetation were created before the Sun and stars?

This belief is based on much circumstantial evidence that seems to support this view.

What evidence?
I'm still waiting for some supporting evidence for the scripture you're weaving this whole, elaborate mythology from.

Therefore, unless man can provide a provable explanation, using empirical evidence, of where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence and in what sequence, I choose to believe in the supernatural.

So unless we have a full, proven explanation for something, it's reasonable to attribute it to magic?
How many magical explanations have held up over time? How many have crumbled under scrutiny?
Our experience of the world is of phenomena having explanations; of cause and effect.

Mythology always dwells at the margins of our understanding, and has been in steady retreat for centuries. Why would you expect this trend to be at an end?

I have tried to use a methodlogy used by science in presenting this new theory.

No. You haven't done anything like that. Yours is speculative mythology based on a book of folklore. I see no scientific methodology at all.

Science starts in the present with a desired ending.

You've got that precisely backwards.
You're either being deliberately provocative or you're abysmally ignorant of what science is.

My entire point, science cannot validate where, when and how space, matter, energy and time came into existence. Just like those of us that believe in the supernatural, God, we cannot prove when, where and how God came into existence.

But you're seeing science and mythology as comparable. They're not. Science is not an alternative sort of religion. Methodologically, it's the opposite of religion. Scientific method is not a priori, as you seem to think.
And "No current explanation, therefore God" is a false dilemma.

Using the scriptures as they are written has an explanation as to how the universe came into existence, science does not.

No!
The scriptures "explain" nothing. They assert a magical agent and a sequence of events -- period.
Only science explains, and an explanation not yet complete is not a support for magic.

Also, I find Scripture agrees with science in that according to Isaiah 40:26 God used His 'power and strength' ( His dynamic energy ) to create the material realm of our existence.

How does this agree with science? it's not even framed as a scientific concept.
Don't all mythical creators use magical powers and strength to effect their aims?