Cube

A lot of assumptions are there; even if the distances and rates are correctly identified, that doesn't mean that was how long things have been in play; that is the question; we can look at things now and assume this is how its always been, but that is a huge assumption. We cannot say how it started, what the starting point looked like, or anything of that nature, and this is the same issue with biology, too; this is what we see now, extrapolating backward suggesting is with the current things we do know now can allow to know how it all started with the current information. One of the main reasons for that is the information within systems driving all of the processes; instructions that direct processes start and stop in complex functional systems are never found to crop up by chance and improve over time; the norm is a degrading of function.

Because discussions about the origin of both the Universe and life tend to go round in circles, I prefer these days to focus minds on the timescales involved, particularly the imense span of time required to create the elements essential for life.

Then I ask the question - does this look like a natural process or one put in place by some ('all powerful') deity with the purpose of creating life? For me it has to be the former because I can't conceive of any conscious entity going about the task in that way.

There is no conceivable way to create anything without the appearance of age.

That is mostly true of natural processes but the age of the Universe that's been calculated isn't just an 'appearance', it's the actual time taken (10,000,000,000 years) to bring about the circumstances required for the formation of our solar system, without which life in this very remote corner of the galaxy/Cosmos would not have had a home.

   If you don't know the bounds of our Universe how do you know were remote?

   If you don't know how or where or when things started how do you know how long it took them to change from you don't know what into what we have now?

Don't read too much into 'remote' - our star system is situated on one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way, very far from the great mass of stars in our galaxy - that's all I was referring to.

To give some sense of scale, if the centre of our galaxy was NY City, we'd be sitting in a corn field in Nebraska  😉

But on this: "If you don't know how or where or when things started how do you know how long it took them to change from you don't know what into what we have now?"

Well I don't know beyond trusting professional scientists who study this and related subjects but I do believe their conclusions are sound.

In what way is your disagreement with me? Isn't it with the many decades of scientific discoveries that lead to the conclusions I've been referring to?

  No, it is with you and your belief that science is the final arbiter of all questions.

   I'm not trying to be smart when I say this, but it is your god. If your holy textbook says it is so, then it is so. 
   That is the crux of our differences. 

You appear to be arguing with something you don't actually understand.

What do you think science is for? It's a method of examining how natural processes work and arriving at the most credible explanations after a rigorous process of error elimination. That's very different from guesswork!

I'm quite sure you prefer to deal with the time scales involved but time doesn't answer any questions it only adds more. Without a known starting point, any time you suggest as true is simply an assumption, and even getting that assumption right doesn't do away with all of the necessary requirements involved as Hoyle points out.

How did your actual time start, what was before it?

Please be specific what discoveries have given you the most assurances to confirm your beliefs or whatever you want to call it, your worldview's justification!?

   Of course it is. But when it can't answer questions like where did energy and matter come from (and it can't) and you insist that it can... you go past simple science (which no sane person is against) and dive into scientism.

"a known starting point" - for what? The Cosmos or life on earth?

Cosmologists are able to use a number of techniques to extrapolate backwards to the first moment of the Big Bang ("the known starting point"). The same is true of the emergence of life.

The conclusions reached are not 'assumptions', they're based on careful observation and calculation. And Hoyle wasn't a Biologist - that matters. And he was speaking over 20 years ago.

Bizarre as this sounds, if time is an attribute of the physical Universe (a dimension of it), it didn't exist prior to the Big Bang, so there was no 'before'.

Do you mean from what did the Universe emerge?

Now we're starting to go around in circles because you're repeatedly asking the same questions. If you sincerely want to understand the foundation of modern Cosmology then you need to do some reading on the subject.

The conclusion reached by research into the subject is that the Universe is 13.77 billion years old...

https://www.space.com/universe-age-14-billion-years-old

As the article explains this result is subject to small revisions but only of the order of a percentage point or so. What can be said with confidence is that our Universe is over 13.5 billion years old.

I think you're confusing questions that haven't been answered yet with ones that have no answer? But I don't remember insisting on anything of the kind - all I'm saying is that within the period of the existence of the Universe we can now be confident that it is 13.77 billion years old or...

13,770,000,000 years old.

And it took many billions of years for exploding stars to create the disk of dust that was needed to allow our solar system to form.

You have not addressed my questions I don’t care how much time you think was available if you can not talk about the beginning you are not addressing the questions. Didn’t you  dismiss the chemist who was speaking to this as well a long time ago because he wasn’t a biologist? Before the beginning of life according to many there was no biology at all, so suggesting we need one to look at this is before their discipline comes into play.

The current state of things....

1. To avoid an infinite regress one must ultimately posit a non-contingent uncaused first cause as a 'brute fact' that cannot be proved. For theists, this is God; for atheists/agnostics, this is a non-boundary universe or multiverse or some such alternative. Either way, everyone has to start with a brute fact that they can't prove.

2. Science has no natural explanation for the origin of the physical laws and constants that govern our universe.

3. The evidence for the Big Bang expansion and evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years is substantial. There are no competing theories that explain the observational evidence as well.

4. The evidence for the old age of the Earth and universe is also substantial. There are no alternatives that can explain the observational evidence as well.

5. The scientific evidence tells us that life is not a spontaneous thermodynamic process. That is, life is not deterministic. It is not an inevitable product of natural law. If we were to draw conclusions based on the sum total scientific evidence to date, then we would have to conclude that it is not possible for life to naturally arise from nonlife. Abigoenesis remains an unproven working assumption in science that has not been empirically demonstrated. 

6. The evidence for biological evolution, common ancestry, and the relatedness of organisms has grown exponentially. There are no competing theories that explain the evidence as well.

7. We have no geological evidence that there has ever been a global flood at any time during the history of the Earth.

8. The Genesis 1 creation account is most similar to Egyptian creation myths and seems to be a direct theological polemic and refutation of those Egyptian myths.

This is an honest presentation of the current state of knowledge on these subjects...