What came before the Big Bang?

  • 67 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for hulk_like_fire
Hulk_Like_Fire

4952

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Was there time? If so, does that mean time never had a beginning and will never have an end?

Was there space? Do you believe that space existed before the Big Bang and will continue to exist after the Universe comes to an end?

Explain what you believe.

Avatar image for deltahuman
deltahuman

5398

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Boltzmann Brain

Avatar image for baldur_odinson
Baldur_Odinson

1871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've thought about this. Before time, there was literally nothing; no elements or matter or energy of any kind. Absolute empty nothingness. Not a speck. But, then time and matter and energy came, pushing whatever that nothingness was away, creating something. It took up space that was never there, then suddenly was, because it existed. I can imagine nothingness being a solid pillow that stretches for eternity, and somehow, that something became, shoving that pillow further and further until it was no more, yet that something succeeded in drawing its first proverbial breath.

Avatar image for hulk_like_fire
Hulk_Like_Fire

4952

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@baldur_odinson: There is a theory that before the Big Bang, there was a solid, really dense object, the size of my hand. It was so dense that it eventually exploded creating what we know of today.

Avatar image for baldur_odinson
Baldur_Odinson

1871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hulk_like_fire: Something the size of your hand took up the size of the Universe before everything was created. Meaning, that object was the Universe, until it happened to grow.

Avatar image for hulk_like_fire
Hulk_Like_Fire

4952

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@baldur_odinson: Well not really grow. I would say compact. The density of the object increased second by second eventually causing it to explode.

Avatar image for baldur_odinson
Baldur_Odinson

1871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for hulk_like_fire
Hulk_Like_Fire

4952

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for baldur_odinson
Baldur_Odinson

1871

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@hulk_like_fire said:

@baldur_odinson: Not expand, release.

And what does the released thing do? Expand, otherwise it goes nowhere, and stays wherever sans motion.

Avatar image for cosmic_reign
cosmic_reign

4898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Possibly a 'Big Crunch'

Avatar image for vjbthe3
vjbthe3

694

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

time didn't exist. TIme is a measurement. For it to exist there needs to be something to measure. Space existed... or else there would be nothing for the universe to inhabit

Avatar image for joker567892
Joker567892

3192

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Hentai......

Avatar image for referee
Referee

18514

Forum Posts

56

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

TMZ

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for quinlan58
Quinlan58

3305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nothing. Alternatively, everything. Alternatively, God.

Alternatively, wrong question, time did not exist so there's no "before".

Avatar image for darkthunder
Darkthunder

9200

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

time came with the big bang

though I don't believe in the big band because

1 if there was "nothing" before it, then that "nothingness" is incomprehensible

2 how did the big band suddenly come outta nowhere?

3 even the world just existing is incomprehensible as all thing have a begining and an end so there's always gonna be a question of what created this, so its better to believe this

Avatar image for tifalockhart
TifaLockhart

22282

Forum Posts

253

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Why are you asking me?

Avatar image for superizu85
SuperIzu85

37

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for buckwheat
Buckwheat

3751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By Buckwheat

Before the Big Bang we had Friends and Two and a Half Men.

Avatar image for squaddoubleyou
SquadDoubleYou

2475

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By SquadDoubleYou

God having an abdominal ache before he harshly releases things

Avatar image for redhood_jaytodd
RedHood_JayTodd

2912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Zeno

Avatar image for thanosii
thanosii

3368

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

To a virus the cell is a universe, to a cell the body is tge universe, etc we a in a petri dish of some giant being

Avatar image for wolverinebatmanftw
WolverineBatmanFTW

6640

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

This seems like the wrong place to ask such an endlessly complex question.

Avatar image for leem724
LeeM724

901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Nobody knows.

We aren't at that level of scientific advancement to actually know what it was like before the Big Bang. So anything anyone says is just speculation with no evidence.

Also as a side note, the Universe did exist before the Big Bang, the Big Bang was just the earliest event we can trace back to right now. We don't know if the Big Bang was close to the start of the universe as a whole or even if there was an actual beginning.

Source:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/history-of-the-universe/

PS: You'd be better off looking at articles by scientists instead of asking people on internet forums about this topic (unless you just wanted to know more about what people on the Vine personally believed about the subject)

Avatar image for tonystark6999
TonyStark6999

7395

Forum Posts

4146

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25  Edited By dshipp17

In the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth.

In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God; the Word was God.

Based on the totality of all forms of evidence, including scientific evidence, this has proven to be the most plausible explanation; and, then, along with that fact, I have faith in God; having personal experiences has helped me reach my conclusions. Concluding that we are the latest in a line of big crunches is just being dismissive and stubborn towards the real evidence, simply because it shatters your desire to want to not believe in God.

Having established that to be the case, I believe that likely, we're inside an abyss, relative to another plane of existence that includes Heaven; God then created physical reality inside this abyss; I'll have to await Heaven to be exposed to other information to then have a clearer picture.

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

10442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There was no big bang. The universe is eternal.

Avatar image for ccbm2208
Ccbm2208

861

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Kol.

Avatar image for hulk_like_fire
Hulk_Like_Fire

4952

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for ccbm2208
Ccbm2208

861

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Probably something we couldn't really comprehend.

Avatar image for wolverinebatmanftw
WolverineBatmanFTW

6640

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:

In the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth.

In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God; the Word was God.

Based on the totality of all forms of evidence, including scientific evidence, this has proven to be the most plausible explanation; and, then, along with that fact, I have faith in God; having personal experiences has helped me reach my conclusions. Concluding that we are the latest in a line of big crunches is just being dismissive and stubborn towards the real evidence, simply because it shatters your desire to want to not believe in God.

Having established that to be the case, I believe that likely, we're inside an abyss, relative to another plane of existence that includes Heaven; God then created physical reality inside this abyss; I'll have to await Heaven to be exposed to other information to then have a clearer picture.

I'm not interested in debating the nature of the universe with you, but I am curious -- what scientific evidence are you referring to? Could you link me a source?

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By dshipp17

@wolverinebatmanftw said:
@dshipp17 said:

In the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth.

In the beginning was the Word; the Word was with God; the Word was God.

Based on the totality of all forms of evidence, including scientific evidence, this has proven to be the most plausible explanation; and, then, along with that fact, I have faith in God; having personal experiences has helped me reach my conclusions. Concluding that we are the latest in a line of big crunches is just being dismissive and stubborn towards the real evidence, simply because it shatters your desire to want to not believe in God.

Having established that to be the case, I believe that likely, we're inside an abyss, relative to another plane of existence that includes Heaven; God then created physical reality inside this abyss; I'll have to await Heaven to be exposed to other information to then have a clearer picture.

I'm not interested in debating the nature of the universe with you, but I am curious -- what scientific evidence are you referring to? Could you link me a source?

“I'm not interested in debating the nature of the universe with you, but I am curious -- what scientific evidence are you referring to? Could you link me a source?”

Oh, there are quite a few examples available for exploration in the scholarly Christian community. One starting source is Answers in Genesis; that should lead to other sources.

The first example that immediately comes to mind is embedded within the Big Bang Theory itself and what we should expect to see. An explosion implies disorder and chaos. But, instead, the observable universe is ordered on a larger scale. For instance, galaxies form a sort of structure, themselves; galaxies also form structural regions with one another, similar to electrons orbiting a nucleus; this could only be observed and understood with more advanced telescopes. Essentially, the better technology gets, the more things are tending to support the Bible and Christianity.

But, if the situation were the result of just a big explosion, we'd expect things to be just scattered all over the place, possibly without ever even forming stars; and, by the way, star formation isn't something that's actually been observed nor should star formation be something that is expected to be observed, based on the properties of gases, in a chemical sense. As expected from gas laws, we only observe stars dying.

Avatar image for turtletortoise
TurtleTortoise

472

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

everything was probably energy

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

10442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The Big Bang is not really an explosion

The Big Bang couldn't create more than 3 light elements

Those elements couldn't form stars with gravity alone

Without stars, no other elements could be created

Lots of elements like carbon should take more than heat and pressure to form but origins science is absolutely full of lucky happenings.

We so lucky

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

3168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Maybe a previous universe collapsed and then The Big Bang started off a new universe (which is our current universe)?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

10442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for faradaysloth
FaradaySloth

15114

Forum Posts

129

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Idk but everything you see is gonna die and be erased from history because the universe itself will die in the future.

Avatar image for arranvid
ArranVid

3168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

10442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The small bang?

Avatar image for spareheadone
SpareHeadOne

10442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Dinner and dancing and an invitation to come in for coffee?

Avatar image for theone34gg
thEonE34gG

430

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This stuff also confuses me. I'm not exactly sure what nothing is. But apparently, that was what was before anything.

Avatar image for wolverinebatmanftw
WolverineBatmanFTW

6640

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17:

So, other than the musing of yourself and the Christian community, could you link me an actual reputable, peer-reviewed scientific source? Because right now, you're essentially just making inferences that align with your viewpoint rather than presenting empirical, fact-based evidence.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By dshipp17

@wolverinebatmanftw said:

@dshipp17:

So, other than the musing of yourself and the Christian community, could you link me an actual reputable, peer-reviewed scientific source? Because right now, you're essentially just making inferences that align with your viewpoint rather than presenting empirical, fact-based evidence.

In my last post, I pointed to the observations made by telescopes. Quoting empirical data from any valid sources is acceptable unless the data is credibly in dispute. Basically, you're looking for biased sources, knowing they'll likely to at least contain an opinionated wording that supports your biased viewpoint. Here, you could have attempted to discuss the data description. I'm only describing the raw data that was presented, whatever you want to call it. You have been linked to a source; if you would have looked, you would have been lead to the data that you're requesting. What took you so long? Someone talking to you who's also talking behind my back? Because they're telling you something you'd prefer to hear doesn't validate your beliefs or theirs.

Avatar image for wolverinebatmanftw
WolverineBatmanFTW

6640

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@dshipp17 said:
@wolverinebatmanftw said:

@dshipp17:

So, other than the musing of yourself and the Christian community, could you link me an actual reputable, peer-reviewed scientific source? Because right now, you're essentially just making inferences that align with your viewpoint rather than presenting empirical, fact-based evidence.

In my last post, I pointed to the observations made by telescopes. Quoting empirical data from any valid sources is acceptable unless the data is credibly in dispute. Basically, you're looking for biased sources, knowing they'll likely to at least contain an opinionated wording that supports your biased viewpoint. Here, you could have attempted to discuss the data description. I'm only describing the raw data that was presented, whatever you want to call it. You have been linked to a source; if you would have looked, you would have been lead to the data that you're requesting. What took you so long? Someone talking to you who's also talking behind my back? Because they're telling you something you'd prefer to hear doesn't validate your beliefs or theirs.

Just vaguely saying that observations of telescopes confirm your ideas does not constitute quoting actual empirical evidence. In science, you're expected to be specific, and to provide actual scientific sources.

And I'm not looking for biased sources. I'm looking for scientific sources, and I don't know if you've heard, but being unbiased is a pretty important part of the central premise of science. Also, are you seriously going to tell me I'm being biased when the only source you've presented and are defending is a religious text from thousands of years ago? Science is generally meant to be detached from ideology. The same cannot be said for religion.

And I don't even know what this is all about: "What took you so long? Someone talking to you who's also talking behind my back? Because they're telling you something you'd prefer to hear doesn't validate your beliefs or theirs."

Are you asking why I didn't reply to you immediately? It's only been 2 days, and also, I did not see the notification until recently, as I do get pings from other threads. You're not the centre of my existence.

Also, you say I've been linked a source, but in actuality, no matter how much you believe in it, the Bible cannot be considered a valid scientific source. This is a book that said a man was able to fit 2 of every land species on earth into a boat, and that the Earth was created in a few days.

You want me to address what you actually wrote? Okay.

@dshipp17 said:

The first example that immediately comes to mind is embedded within the Big Bang Theory itself and what we should expect to see. An explosion implies disorder and chaos. But, instead, the observable universe is ordered on a larger scale. For instance, galaxies form a sort of structure, themselves; galaxies also form structural regions with one another, similar to electrons orbiting a nucleus; this could only be observed and understood with more advanced telescopes. Essentially, the better technology gets, the more things are tending to support the Bible and Christianity.

But, if the situation were the result of just a big explosion, we'd expect things to be just scattered all over the place, possibly without ever even forming stars; and, by the way, star formation isn't something that's actually been observed nor should star formation be something that is expected to be observed, based on the properties of gases, in a chemical sense. As expected from gas laws, we only observe stars dying.

This is an inaccurate comparison. According to modern scientific research, electrons don't actually orbit nuclei in rings. This is an outdated concept. Rather, the current model of the atom (Schrodinger and Heisenberg's model) rules out this concept of elliptical orbits in favour of a concept of what could be called "clouds of probability".

This is what the model looks like.

No Caption Provided

Your second point about the formation of stars is incredibly vague. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to lay out the specifics, not just say stuff like "star formation isn't something that's actually been observed nor should star formation be something that is expected to be observed, based on the properties of gases, in a chemical sense. As expected from gas laws, we only observe stars dying."

You can call me stupid if you like for not wanting to accept your vague inferences and references, but that won't change the fact that what you've said would hold absolutely no value in a serious scientific debate.

And if you want, I can show you more examples of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This page and this page have compiled a few inaccuracies nicely. This one, too.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44  Edited By dshipp17

@wolverinebatmanftw:

“And if you want, I can show you more examples of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This page and this page have compiled a few inaccuracies nicely. This one, too.”

“And I'm not looking for biased sources. I'm looking for scientific sources, and I don't know if you've heard, but being unbiased is a pretty important part of the central premise of science. Also, are you seriously going to tell me I'm being biased when the only source you've presented and are defending is a religious text from thousands of years ago? Science is generally meant to be detached from ideology. The same cannot be said for religion.”

Here, you're linking to rationalwiki,org, which is something of a mirror image of Answers in Genesis from the perspective of atheists. You're being disingenuous, and, it was known from the start, because you didn't even put any effort, at all, into investigating the source that I directed you to, after you asked for one; after being invited a second time, you still haven't taken up the invitation; you clearly are (or were not actually) looking to be biased against the information being provided. This doesn't help you from a standpoint of looking to get informed; websites like Answers in Genesis are constantly fielding claims and responses from rationalwiki,org; thus, to help inform yourself, you might want to go over to Answers in Genesis to see what they had to say in response; that's clearly the more objective approach to things. Since I have a background in science already, I'm not being that biased in my approach; I can anticipate what they're likely going to say, so, I stick with Answers in Genesis to see what they say in response, and draw my conclusions; but, at this time, I'm unable to be active and practicing as a scientist, so I default to scientists who can still be active to help keep me informed, but from the side who doesn't have so much riding on getting a win; I'm on the side that's won, so far (e.g. as I said, atheism had its golden age from about 1800 through 1950, science and technology caught up, and Christianity proved to be correct; however, the way society has shifted such that it's easier to indoctrinate young people in school and have it appear was getting an education, it appears that Christianity is slipping, but, that isn't the case, at all, just based off the findings; however, you will need to visit Answers in Genesis to discover this to be the case; naturally, the side that's loss is going to want to try to dissuade people from going there; but, you have to gain wisdom and experience to figure this out; you haven't figured out or asked yourself, why is it so difficult for me to just go start looking over Answers in Genesis; if you find something seemingly bogus, you ask questions there, and they can't provide a valid answer, you can draw a conclusion, except there are a wide array of different evidences available). The people running Answers in Genesis are also scientists who are willing to be much more objective in their approach. You're presuming and then insisting and spreading unfounded claims about Answers in Genesis without even investigating it; you more serving as a decoy to someone who might be interested in learning, objectively.

Sure, conducting science and gathering data is unbiased, but, given the context, the findings can often times be open to interpretation and there is where the bias comes into place; I've heard things from that side like disregard a supernatural source even if the data is pointed that way; hence, the bias on display; that's just one example.

Again, this is all your ignorance of the source or a level of disingenuousness that is so high that you can't be taken seriously; the source that I pointed you to, again, is about interpreting raw data and drawing conclusions that are plainly obvious from the raw data; from there, they point out how it supports the Bible; the fact that it is from thousands of years again is then one confirmation that it is inspired from God, which is kind of the point; if it were just a text from merely people from thousands of years ago, we'd expect everything from it to be antiquated and inaccurate; you want to disregard it by default based on its age when the proper approach is to at least give it an investigative mind and then draw conclusions about the validity; but, it also has to be an extensive and in depth investigation to then conclusively draw a conclusion, but, still being open to being shown an approach in the future that could show your conclusions to have been wrong.

“Just vaguely saying that observations of telescopes confirm your ideas does not constitute quoting actual empirical evidence. In science, you're expected to be specific, and to provide actual scientific sources.”

This all depends on the context and you were referred to a source to start looking. Depending on how precise you want your information depends on how accurate you decide to investigate the sources that you'll find. I basically described something found by telescopes; now, you're left to confirm for yourself whether galaxies are group into larger configurations or whether there isn't any larger configuration, or, that galaxies are in no particular order. As such, I didn't just vaguely describe anything as you imply here.

“Are you asking why I didn't reply to you immediately? It's only been 2 days, and also, I did not see the notification until recently, as I do get pings from other threads. You're not the centre of my existence.”

Obviously, if you asked a question and had legitimate expectations of receiving the answers, you likely would stick around for that answer; this is just a logical extension, not an issue of whether you believe that I'm central to your existence; it was based on expecting you to do something that most people do in a conversation.

“Also, you say I've been linked a source, but in actuality, no matter how much you believe in it, the Bible cannot be considered a valid scientific source. This is a book that said a man was able to fit 2 of every land species on earth into a boat, and that the Earth was created in a few days.”

Here, you're talking in vagueness; be precise in what you mean about the Bible being a scientific source; your precision will then allow me to determine whether we're on the same page; so far, it appears that you're referring to something that neither I nor a source like Answers in Genesis would be referring to. The Bible doesn't say that something was placed into a boat; here, you're extremely vague about the use of the term, boat; nor does the Bible say that the earth was created in a few days; Answers in Genesis doesn't say that the earth was created in a few days; here, you need to be a lot more specific about what it is that you're getting at; you obviously made no effort, at all, to investigate the source that you claimed to need; the key term, investigate, for one; except you obviously didn't even bother to just simply find or access the provided website. The reason that it's done this way is because there are thousands of examples to be shared, not just a single or even a few examples to cover the topic of discussion and what you asked; here, you don't seem to understand how vague your question, again, speaking of being vague.

“This is an inaccurate comparison. According to modern scientific research, electrons don't actually orbit nuclei in rings.”

This isn't something that I said, either; however, the 1s, 2s, 3s, etc shells are still true; what you're referencing is an electron cloud and the larger structural configuration of galaxies is quite similar, which is closer to what I said. Here, you just have to concede a point, which was that galaxies form larger clusters which are similar to electrons orbiting the nucleus, where, there should be no discernible structure, at all, to chaos and disorder, which was the point (e.g. this is beyond remarkable that anything even close to this level of structural arrangement can be found, pretty clearly); each shell have ever increasing numbers of electrons, similar to the way galaxies appear in their larger arrangements. Basically, you're trying to shift the topic, instead of embarking on an expedition of learning, which was required, where your question implied that you needed information; but, this is how you demonstrated yourself to be disingenuous; you have to actually be honest with yourself and embark on a mission of exploration.

“Your second point about the formation of stars is incredibly vague. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to lay out the specifics, not just say stuff like "star formation isn't something that's actually been observed nor should star formation be something that is expected to be observed, based on the properties of gases, in a chemical sense. As expected from gas laws, we only observe stars dying."”

No, not at all; that star formation has not been observed to occur is quite precise; not being expected based on how gases behave is quite precise, as well; this was coupled with a source to investigate star formation, where, you claimed to need information to pursue; that's how I responded to your question and how I would respond to your question, as, by the same token, you likewise need to be less vague in your question; but, you can only do this, if you were way more informed on what you think you sound intelligent in attacking. You provided links, though, so I likewise provided links to help you become more informed.

“You can call me stupid if you like for not wanting to accept your vague inferences and references, but that won't change the fact that what you've said would hold absolutely no value in a serious scientific debate.”

I'm not in a scientific debate, I was answering your question; and, strategically speaking, I wouldn't necessarily get into a scientific debate, as I'd take it that my opponent was a practicing scientists, whereas I cannot currently practice science; but, I could relay information from scientists who are a practicing scientists, which I'm doing; depending on what's necessary, I can then debate, based on the disconnects, as I can still tell who is right and who is wrong; but, the topic is much more complicated and expansive. And, the comment you quoted said the totality of the circumstances of different evidences.

“And if you want, I can show you more examples of scientific inaccuracies in the Bible. This page and this page have compiled a few inaccuracies nicely. This one, too.”

See https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/two-missing-legs/

See https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/are-mustard-seeds-the-smallest-or-was-jesus-wrong/

See https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/do-ancient-canaanite-remains-discredit-bible/

See https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/examination-hugh-ross-creation-passages-proverbs-to-isaiah/

See https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/as-easy-as-pi/

See https://www.icr.org/article/9296

See https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/days-without-sun-what-was-source-light/

See https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/stars/are-stars-still-forming-today/

See https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/the-age-of-the-universe-part-2/

Avatar image for joviolma
JOVIOLMA

11077

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

There was no before if time didn't existed.

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I've thought about this. Before time, there was literally nothing; no elements or matter or energy of any kind. Absolute empty nothingness. Not a speck. But, then time and matter and energy came, pushing whatever that nothingness was away, creating something. It took up space that was never there, then suddenly was, because it existed. I can imagine nothingness being a solid pillow that stretches for eternity, and somehow, that something became, shoving that pillow further and further until it was no more, yet that something succeeded in drawing its first proverbial breath.

Nothing can not create. It has no properties or attributes by definition.

Avatar image for dshipp17
dshipp17

6389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for just_sayin
just_sayin

4810

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Possibly a 'Big Crunch'

No. The gravitational force and weight of the universe is not sufficient. Even if it was, the process would result in a loss of energy with each crunch so that if the universe were eternal it would have died an eternity ago.

Avatar image for eslay03
eslay03

2110

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The Big Bang theory

Avatar image for kaizergenocide
Kaizergenocide

915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@eslay03 said:

The Big Bang theory

I think it's the Big "wank" before the BANG!