Cube

Why doesn't that surprise me? But if it's the case that some conscious being created the Universe (I very much doubt it) what on earth does anyone's book written down in the late Bronze Age have to do with it?

Do you have a primary source or book for your beliefs you go to, or is it all off the cuff?

It's the revelation of God.

That's very much your opinion but the facts of the 'evolution' of the Universe are not opinion.

What specifically, the established facts of Cosmology?

I'd like to hear about some facts because many of the things I hear about that people base their beliefs on sound more like things unprovable, and not falsifiable and yet accepted as if they were the gospel truth nonetheless. When logic is applied to the whole of the story, many of the things that some call facts don't add up, as Hoyle suggests.

Are you questioning the reliability of the results that Cosmologists have regarding the age of the Universe and solar system?

Are you questioning the timescale Biologists now accept for the evolution of life on earth?

These things are based on sound scientific research, not guesswork!

   If something is a fact, someone's opinion of that fact is really irrelevant, isn't it. 
   Since there is no way to scientifically prove the "evolution of the Universe (as you call it)" that's really nothing more than opinion also, isn't it? If you are honest you have to admit that. You may follow up your admission with all kinds of talk of "preponderance of blah" and "PhD's agree that blah" and "Kjvav is so blah", but it's just a guess, an opinion.

What may have been written down as 'sacred truth' in the Bronze Age, bears no relation to the conclusions of Cosmologists when it comes to estimating the age of the Universe and its composition when it first cooled and the elements formed, or to those of Biologists as regards the evolution of life.

We can be very confident that it really did take some 10,000,000,000 years for countless stars to go through the process of forming, converting the lighter elements of Hydrogen and Helium into heavier ones (essential for life) and then exploding, sending these elements far out into space. Only then when our solar system formed from such debris were conditions in place to allow the emergence of the first life.

But even then another 3000,000,000+ years passed before our species finally evolved.

You can reject such discoveries if you want but claiming they're nothing more than just another set of beliefs devoid of foundation, is the kind of thinking that's heading for extinction.

   And by the way, that you dismiss wisdom as being old (Bronze Age) exhibits how little of it you have.

"I know someone can be very confident about that. Obviously you are. But you are as wrong as nipples on chickens"

But what is your justification for claiming this is 'wrong'? Young Earth Creationist by any chance?

Biblical Creation believer. As written.

Some propositional beliefs are well justified because they result from a process of observation, the forming of hypotheses, testing of said hypotheses and elimination of alternatives. It's a rigorous process that's designed to rule out human bias (insofar as that's possible) and other errors.

That's to say, the scientific method.

Any claim that a propositional belief is true in the absence of such rigorous testing is nothing more than dogma - "this is fact because I have a book that claims it to be"?

   Then go ahead and believe that matter and energy created themselves. No one's stopping you.

   Or maybe matter created energy and energy turned around and created matter? It works on paper, so.....

I've never claimed anything 'created itself' but you're drifting off into other areas.

All I'm saying is what I've stated above more than once - that the well established and broadly  accepted model of the Universe that Cosmology has revealed to us is natural in all its aspects, from the very earliest moments of the Big Bang.

I can't see any way of reconciling that 10,000,000,000 year process with any description of divine creation I've ever come across. That's all I'm saying.

    My point all along has been that the theoretical Bang cannot be the beginning. You have to realize that.

There're a number of theories surrounding how the Big Bang came to happen but all are highly speculative. Of course theorists are limited by what's possible within the bounds of what our understanding of physics allows.

It's an area of research that probably won't advance until we have more data to feed into the various models. However, none of these models require a 'guiding hand'.

And our understanding of physics does not allow for spontaneous generation of matter and energy from nothing. There has to be a supernatural beginning, and the "Big Bang" cannot be the beginning.

The only thing "there has to be" is a logical and rational explanation for how the Big Bang occurred, given the constraints of physical laws.

Beyond religious fervour, there isn't anything at present that compels us to conclude that it was "a supernatural beginning". Of all the 'out there' theories I've read about the supernatural  ones seem the least likely, if only because they involve some creator-entity whose origin is never explained.