The Big Bang Theory

I've heard some people on various TV shows and other media say that before the big bang there was nothing.  That's a little hard to swallow.  I don't think so.  I've always held an interest and awe at what lies beyond our skies so naturally I watch a few of the shows every once in a while.  On many of the very shows that say that there was nothing before the "Big Bang" they talk about how an exploding star can spawn other stars.  What if THAT was what we are calling the big bang?  That the visible universe is the result of exploding stars spawning galaxies.

Ever blow bubbles into your drink with a straw?  Maybe when you were a child?  What was in that bubble before you put the straw in your drink and blew?

More than likely, like your bubble, this universe did not even exist prior to the big bang.

I don't think we can dismiss what was already there that allowed it to happen.  In your example we have the drink, straw, air and a means to insert the air into the drink to make the bubble.  

It's also hard to make something with nothing...

Agreed.   If we are to be precise with out language something cannot come from (literal) nothing by definition.   This is an area where I wish the scientific community would sharpen its use of language.   The concept of nothing (of which some speak) is the notion that a particle and an anti-particle can emerge from 'nothing'.   The 'nothing' is, by definition, something since something emerged.   Net energy of zero is not literally 'nothing'.

There had to be "something" to make something.. It just poof.. appeared?

I do not presume that in the beginning there was nothing.   Existence necessarily has always 'been' - the underlying substance of existence has always been around.   The substance of existence (by any name) demonstrably evolves.   New forms emerge (such as stars, planets, beings, particles) and old forms degrade yielding their substance to contribute to future new forms.

In your example we have the drink, straw, air and a means to insert the air into the drink to make the bubble.

I just used it as an example.  Current scientific theory postulates about multiple universes or (to borrow a phrase from DC or Marvel) a "multiverse".  One theory is that when 2 universes "bump" together, it may cause a 3rd to be born.  But that is all conjecture and the truth may never be known.  However you are correct, in as far as current known physical laws go, it is impossible to create something out of nothing.

But then you have to ask if there really was nothing.  Perhaps this universe has always existed in one form or another, with different sets of laws.

Perhaps this universe has always existed in one form or another, with different sets of laws.

Can't rule that out either.  We do have a lot to learn and in the big scheme of things very limited resources to utilize.  

It's also hard to make something with nothing...

Yet the recent demonstration of the Higgs boson showed that an elementary particle passing through a certain energy field gains mass in the form of added massless energy.  So, in a way something is created out of nothing. 

Yet the recent demonstration of the Higgs boson showed that an elementary particle passing through a certain energy field gains mass in the form of added massless energy.  So, in a way something is created out of nothing.

Yup.

That's fine, but how do we know it always existed?

Logic.  Based on the meaning of 'nothing'.

The substance of existence (let's call it 'energy' for lack of a better term) cannot emerge from nothing.   By definition of 'nothing'.

Therefore the substance of existence has always existed.

The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another).

That is what Higgs boson proved. 

So they didn't create something from nothing but changed it's form. So in essence, TIG is right. 

yes.

So there was never a beginning then..

Another way of saying that is:  existence has always been.

Yet the recent demonstration of the Higgs boson showed that an elementary particle passing through a certain energy field gains mass in the form of added massless energy.  So, in a way something is created out of nothing.

The Higgs field is something.  

It is also physical proof of E = MxC squared other than a thermonuclear weapon.

I've heard some people on various TV shows and other media say that before the big bang there was nothing.

That's just a plot by the Washington political establishment.

I think the question that most here on NT want to address is, as always, blame.

Who's to blame-- is it Hillary . . .  or Trump?

Who's to blame-- is it Hillary . . .  or Trump?

ummm....what?  

I've done it myself.  

I think it's only hard to understand for people who think empty space is actually empty. It's not. Just like how we got the wrong impression of an atom which is why the old designs showed the electrons orbiting the nucleus, only now do we understand that the electrons aren't orbiting at all but appear and disappear at different places around the nucleus. With the study of the quantum states and the new discoveries of dark matter it's entirely possible that the big bang was an expulsion of dark matter that existed long before the big bang. If you can imagine a mass of dark energy having a section of it squeezed by quantum forces into a bubble then exploding from a pinhole sized rip in the universe it would look exactly like the big bang with a massive amount of matter being formed and thrown out into what it would consider another dimension. We can weigh dark matter by the gravitational pulls galaxy clusters have on each other and on their stars and the ability to keep them together instead of ripping apart which is what they would do if there were no dark matter.

E.A Yes the Answers are Scientifically Listed at Genesis 1:1-31.

Amazing how such an " Old Book Written by Man " can be so accurate, one has to wonder!

E.A Yes the Answers are Scientifically Listed at Genesis 1:1-31.

Now, that's funny!

Now, that's funny!

E.A  So you have examined it and found it " wanting "?

If by wanting, you mean ridiculously funny, then yes....wanting in the extreme.  Let's look at the passages you cite, shall we?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

The first sentence suggests the earth was created as the same moment the the "big bang" occurred.  The scientific evidence is that the big bang occurred about 14 bya while the age of our solar system 4.5 bya. 

The second sentence contradicts itself as so much of the bible does.  How can the earth be both "formless and empty" and covered with "the waters" at the same time?   But the big laugher in that sentence is that it's telling us the earth existed before the Sun since the earth was dark.  That is, to put it mildly, wildly out of touch with the scientific evidence for the origin of our star system.  

Shall I go on?

Shall I go on?

If you get a thoughtful reply to your comment.   ( Not holding my breath. )

He wanted me to have this conversation on the public chat room but bailed after I brought up the first point so I told him I'd come back here and discuss it with him.  I wonder where he went. 

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

E.A Why Just the First Verse? are they " A thorn in ones Side"?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 First Point God, is stated to be the " Creator " the Universe is the Creation, So that Overcomes the BB Problems where many Physicists now need " Multiverses " so explain the Missing ~97% of Universes Needed Mass.

Second The Creator Pre Existed Obviously the Creation the " Universe " and hence " His Place of Swelling " was Called " Heaven " hence why in the Verse in has " Heavens " Plural

Here the Term " EARTH " is not about a Singular " Planet " but as the original word means " Soil, Turf, Sod, etc "

   See " Protoplanet Formation " SUNS could not pre-exist " Planets " that is because the Theory Goes that as the " BB Expanded ( here is where Gravity IS a Thorn ) And there HAD to be " Axial Spin ( Rotation ) the " Dust bunnies ": Congealed, But NO ONE knows how they then reached Temperatures where they MELTED and formed Solid Planetary Bodies SO we have " Magic after Magic after magic " IN the BB, but the Bible Does away with the " Magic " and Shows how it Happens Scientifically and accurately

E.A Interesting also that the " Creation " started at " EVENNING " why is that?

 Well since God already existed it was " Gods Day " he is " Light " after all. But there is something else that Science wonders and now is in greater perplexity, TIME,  Why would any DAY be based on any Universal rotation? Galactic Spin? Planetary Axial Wobble?

  No Need to be perplexed " Gods Day " has NO time frame because nothing Age, that is until  " He Created " at TAHT Point " Time starts "

 See Entropy and why that is what " TIME " is time can not exist by itself, it is only a Measure of " Decay " and hence only came about after the " Evening of the Fist Creation "

 And here is the Second Perplexity of Science that did NOT get solved till the 1960s and that has to do about " How Critical NIGHT ( Darkness ) is to Lifeforms and why It has to do with Chemical reactions and Sugars  I " Let the Reader become wise and do some research "

our solar system 4.5

E.A Interesting that  between " evening and Moring " there is a period called " Night " God has no " time " he does not decay so Time only has a meaning for those that undergo decay, but what about the NIGHT, Good Scientist understand that in ALL Processes there is a need fort a duration for Congealment, Solidification, Development, and the BIB LE allows for that in t6he term " Night "

NB: The " Earth day time frame " did not become useful until something was on earth alive and in need of that!

How can the earth be both "formless and empty"

E.A  All Scientist accept that at the " Beginning " the Planet would have had Thermal conditions that would have meant in was " Void " So the Bible again is 100% Accurate.

Now as to " water " Scientist have difficulty in explain how it came about, some say asteroids other meteors and some even say Aliens transported it here.

The Bible on the Other hand Does away with the need of the " Unexplained " and points out that the one that knew how to make Hydrogen and Oxygen, and HAD A basic knowledge OF THE " water phase diagram " ( In My Photobucket Album The point is made that NASA had no such knowledge ) That for H2O to exist certain electropressure conditions had to be right.

" and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

 NOTE also that " stagnant waters " would have been of NO benefit, hence the BIBLE again makes an Amazing Scientific fact that Scientist now agree is a " Must have " and that is " The Spirit Moving to and  fro " agitating the waters so as to assist the chemical reactions needed for the future lifeforms

That is, to put it mildly, wildly out of touch with the scientific evidence for the origin of our star system.

E.A " He who Laughs Last Laughs the Best "!  So far the Bible is 100%.

 So shall we go one VERSE at a time till we get to Verse 31?

NB: The " Earth day time frame " did not become useful until something was on earth alive and in need of that!

So, you're saying the bible is all metaphor and not to be taken literally.  

So, you're saying the bible is all metaphor and not to be taken literally.

E.A Only to those that can not comprehend what WAS/IS stated, that TIME only exists when DECAY is present, so Before anything was CREATED with Entropy/Decay, then there was NO time, and since we are Told God is " For ever and ever " time has " No Hold " what is complex in that?

NB : 24 Hour Time frame (Planet  Earth Centric ) of a Miserly dust particle on a rather minuscule Galaxy, in a galactic cluster that hardly show up why would God use that as a frame of reference?

He wanted me to have this conversation on the public chat room but bailed after I brought up the first point so I told him I'd come back here and discuss it with him.

E.A                                                    

Yes you definitely got ME on the RUN LOL

For Evidentiary Use only!

If you get a thoughtful reply to your comment.

E.A  Someone has " Bit the Dust " again, what a record Holder!!!

So far the Bible is 100%

Uh no.  You are twisting what the Bible says to mean what you want it to mean.  If the Bible is the word of God, you have to take each word, sentence, chapter, and verse to mean exactly what it says.  If you feel it needs to be translated, updated to modern English, then it could not be the word of God since it would then be fallible.

So according to the Bible, the Earth was formless and empty, but also covered with water.  Shouldn't God have spotted this contradiction??

You are twisting what the Bible says to mean what you want it to mean.

E.A  Interesting so YOU have seen ME twist the Bible... err ok many thanks!!

Someone has " Bit the Dust " again, what a record Holder!!!

Only you could possibly know what that means but I doubt even that's possible.

So, you're reduced to asking yourself the questions to prefabricated answers?  Like I said in my first comment in this thread:  funny!

My conscience will no longer allow me to continue egging you on into further and deeper ridiculous comments.  I feel sorry for you. 

"Answers In Genesis" and Creationscienece.com try to come across as very scientific, but they are not. It has been scientifically proven that the Universe is expanding, which would point to the conclusion that it was at one time very small...like a singularity.

which would point to the conclusion that it was at one time very small...like a singularity.

E.A Two Points::

 If ALL energy was at a SINGLE point, what made it go BANG??

Now, Imagine 1000 years ago, someone took you ( Lets assume you were there ) to an Airplane, that was Solar Powered so it could circle the earth Infinite  times, From You Sited position on the Airplane, and Your knowledge at that time, what was " Moving"?

Most of us have heard all this nonsense before in Sunday School, you might as well give it up because there is not a shred of real science in what you are saying.

Most of us have heard all this nonsense before in Sunday School, you might as well give it up because there is not a shred of real science in what you are saying.

E.A Thank YOU I will now send a MEMO to ALL Scientist to STOP, no need to research any ffurther I been told by Rex Block that ALL knowledge is now Attained!!!

 Many Thanks :-)

So, you're saying the bible is all metaphor and not to be taken literally.

Of the world's "believers" (i.e. people who do believe that a "god" or "higher power" exists)-- not all believe the same thing. There are those who do indeed believe that the Bible (or The Koran..or any other holy book) is to be taken literally.

But there are also those who believe that its not-- that in actuality its all allegories, or its all symbolic. (A lot of people in the West have trouble with grasping that concept...)

You are twisting what the Bible says to mean what you want it to mean.

And so are you!

One of the problems I have with most discussions online is that everyone thinks they are experts, that they know all the facts, that only their interpretation is correct. And that anyone who has a different opinion is obviously wrong. (And of course that person also thinks the same about anyone who agrees with them, LOL!

In my experience online, the vast majority of people have little or no interest in pursuing the truth-- the actual facts.  Because after all-- they are sure they "know it all".

Rather than pursuing the facts, these "know-it-alls" are constantly obsessively trying to prove that everyone who has has a different opinion is wrong. (And this applies to all topics-- whether the discussion be about politics, religion..or anything else).

you have to take each word, sentence, chapter, and verse to mean exactly what it says.

That's true-- if you are incapable of accepting the fact that there is such a thing as allegorical writing-- that there is a possibility of writers like this be capable of writing in allegories. 

Sometimes very wise people realize that "the common man" may not be capable of understanding some relatively difficult concepts-- so instead of explaining them in a literal fashion, they realize that a discourse in the form of allegories may be easier for the average person to understand.

(Granted that concept might be too difficult for many folks here to understand...

That's true-- if you are incapable of accepting the fact that there is such a thing as allegorical writing

So, because the Bible has so many inconsistencies and contradictions in it, it must therefore be allegorical in nature?  Or maybe option 2, the Bible is based on iron age beliefs and mythology that hold no basis in facts.

I shall.

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

Here's the description of earth's first billion years based on scientific evidence ( emphasis added):

As Earth began to take solid form, it had no free oxygen in its atmosphere. It was so hot that the water droplets in its atmosphere could not settle to form surface water or ice. Its first atmosphere was also so poisonous, comprised of helium and hydrogen, that nothing would have been able to survive.

So in v. 1, 1-3; we're told the oceans were there at the beginning.  God must have been having a little fun with man.  

Ken Ham would declare this as historical science and deem it wrong since it contradicts the Bible. 

Of course he would.  He's a guy who can talk the state of TN into financing a religious site and financial failure so he's a grifter of great ability. 

Kentucky, but otherwise, yes.

So in v. 1, 1-3; we're told the oceans were there at the beginning.  God must have been having a little fun with man.

That and everything else you said is true...if you make the assumption that the Bible is to be taken literally.

Actually I believe that in Islam The Holy Koran must be seen as the literal word of Allah (Peace Be Upon Him)-- to say other words is blasphemy of the most serious kind!

(Of course there are many Christians & Jews also feel the Bible is literally true-- however there are many who feel it is really allegorical...and not meant to be taken literally. But hey-- why not tar all believers with the same brush-- after all it does advance your argument!

And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

I think it's important to know who wrote Genesis and when to truly understand it. It was supposedly written by Moses after the Israelite's escaped Egypt while they wandered the wilderness. Now interestingly, Moses was raised and tutored in religion as a Prince of Egypt. In Egyptian mythology the first being was called Atum (Adam) who was considered to be the first god, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu). "and let dry ground appear.” A product of the energy and matter contained in this chaos, he created his children—the first deities, out of loneliness. "The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Genesis 2:18. Atum is the grandfather of Set who is portrayed as the usurper who killed and mutilated his own brother Osiris. (Cain and Able anyone?). There are many more correlations to Egyptian mythology all throughout Genesis and the myths that Moses created in an attempt to tie the Israelite lineage back to the first human and thus claim a birthright for his people while creating a new religion for them to follow which would solidify them as a nation instead of being scattered about the middle east. Moses needed something to tie them all together and the Genesis account was that something.

“Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”

E.A Are you, interested in discussing all of the First chapter verse by verse with a scientific evaluation?

It just goes on and on right through to v. 31.  For example, the stars don't show up until the fourth day.  That's definitely not the scientific version of the origins of the universe.  So, what happened to you E.A.?  You wanted to do this discussion on the public chat venue and wouldn't respond to any of my points and now you're refusing to come back here.  Why would that be?

I've got another head exploder.  

It's pretty universally accepted in science that the universe is expanding.

What is it expanding into?

Itself.

How can it expand into itself?  

If it's expanding into itself it already exists and therefore isn't expanding.

How can it expand into itself?  

If it's expanding into itself it already exists

Think of it this way:  wherever it expands there it is and  Einstein did suggest that space is curved and could fold into or onto itself.  

Nope, that doesn't work.   As modified above if it's expanding into itself it already exists.   If it is getting bigger, it has to moving into something else.   Not itself.

Yep think of it in terms of a balloon.    Blow the balloon up and it expands in to the air space around it, not into itself.   That air space was not previously the balloon.

What space?   The air space?

It exists as an air atmosphere.   We can observe that the balloon is expanding into that air atmosphere  

Technically that atmosphere is part of the universe we are discussing that is allegedly expanding into something else.   So the balloon is expanding into part of the known universe.  

Again, what is the known universe expanding into?

Boom!   Heads exploding .....

If it is getting bigger, it has to moving into something else.

Does it?  What's the scientific basis for that claim?

We can observe that the balloon is expanding into that air atmosphere

If you're going to try to explain the universe expansion with your understanding of an earthly experience like that there's no way your mind is open to considering how it might happen.  First, there's the matter of multiverses that might exist within but not perceivable within this universe.  Physics considers those a real possibility.  Try reading this and see if it helps:

theatlantic

Lol, I've studied this to a great extent but thx for the information.   If you are looking for a fight over this you are not going to get it from me.   I just threw this out there because it is interesting as hell to me.  

The reality is no one knows for sure.  

It is a question that vexes some of the greatest minds that ever existed.

Lots of theories, no answers.

No one can claim they have the right answer, and yes, I find it absolutely facinating.

Very true Kathleen.  The reason no one can come up with a definite answer is because, in order to arrive at a definite provable answer, a person would have to stand outside the process in order to observe it.  That isn't possible, so the phenomena remains in the field of Philosophy rather than that of Science.

Then it would be overlapping.

Possibly.  In fact, that overlapping is the basis for the possibility of "wormholes."  

It creates space as it goes. I realize that is hard concept for some to comprehend.

Well according to the physics I learned matter can not be created nor destroyed so that theory has it’s problematic component.

some folks have trouble understanding that concept

Well according to the physics I learned matter can not be created nor destroyed

E.A May I make a comment on that that might seem contradictory, but it is a clarification!

NB: See what I stated earlier about Mass defect, and " compressed energy "

Post #?

Post #?

E.A  ok thank you Matter is compressed energy, Energy can not be created or destroyed, the Molecules that make up matter can be disassembled .

eg: sun hydrogen helium Both Fusion and Fission do that constantly!

That is not creating matter.

That is not creating matter.

E.A  OK one step at a time, Lets go to the Simplest forms Tau particles, then Muons, at this point I ask, why where " neutrinos " invented?

So the Basic Elements are the Energy " Units " that  Orbit ( Electrostatic Cohesion ) and then have a combined orbits that form " Particles " those particles then form Matter,, is that right?

The reactions in the sun are not creating matter.    The reactions take existing matter and one of the byproducts is energy sure but no new matter is being created.

if you have found differently, you better get on the phone with the worlds top physicists toot sweet and let them know.    You have just made the most important scientific discovery in history

It is a question that vexes some of the greatest minds that ever existed.

But not many people on NT-- because many people here are so sure that they've got it all figured out!

Of course they are not necessarily some of the greatest minds that ever existed. ..despite what they think of themselves. 

hubris (definition)

But not many people on NT-- because many people here are so sure that they've got it all figured out!

Lol, spot on.   For my part  i am very knowledgeable of the basics of Physics.   The question i asked is so far beyond basics it is tough to comprehend but the basics do give us clues based on our current understanding of the physical universe.   Matter not being created nor destroyed is very central to that current understanding.

The answer is something we haven't discovered and/or observed yet.   Perhaps it's been theorized already but it hasn't been proven.   I would love to learn of the answer in my lifetime but i doubt that will happen.  

Well according to the physics I learned matter can not be created nor destroyed so that theory has it’s problematic component.

Are you deliberately trying to derail this discussion or do you really not know the difference between space and matter?

If it is getting bigger, it has to moving into something else. 

Does it?  Why do you believe there has to be something else?  Did you "learn" that in your physics class?  Just when did you take this class? 

Was someone talking to you?   I know i wasn't.

Are you deliberately trying to derail this discussion

Not in the least but you are.

or do you really not know the difference between space and matter?

Is this thread about me?   i didn't think so but it appears that you think it is.   Unfortunately for you it isn't so, buzz off unless you have a discussion with a modicum of respect and consideration.

Based on what i've seen of your stuff here, i won't hold my breathe for that to happen.

Has anyone ever wondered what was "before" the big Bang?

In fact, "someone" has, but I warn you, it's a mind-blowe, but first this fascinating historical footnoter:

St. Augustine considered that only time existed before the material universe came into being.  Hard to posit time without light though and light consists of "material."  But here's some of the more current considerations:

In chaotic inflation theory , this concept goes even deeper: an endless progression of inflationary bubbles, each becoming a universe, and each of these birthing even more inflationary bubbles in an immeasurable multiverse [source: Science News ].

Still other models revolve around the formation of the pre-big bang singularity itself. If you think of black holes as cosmic trash compactors, they stand as prime candidates for all that primordial compression, so our expanding universe could theoretically be the white hole output from a black hole in another universe. A white hole is a hypothetical body that acts in the opposite manner of a black hole, giving off serious energy and matter rather than sucking it in. Think of it as a cosmic exhaust valve. Some scientists propose that our universe may have been born inside a black hole, and every black hole in our own universe could each contain separate universes as well.

Other scientists place the formation of the singularity inside a cycle called the big bounce in which our expanding universe will eventually collapse back in on itself in an event called the big crunch . A singularity once more, the universe will then expand in another big bang. This process would be eternal and, as such, every big bang and big crunch the universe ever experiences would be nothing but a rebirth into another phase of existence.

The last explanation we'll discuss also supports the idea of a cyclical universe, courtesy of string theory. It surmises that new matter and energy spring into existence every trillion years when two extra-dimensional membranes, or branes , collide in a zone outside our universe.

What existed before the big bang? It's still an open question. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps another universe or a different version of our own. Perhaps a sea of universes, each with a different set of laws dictating its physical reality.

I've tried reading Hawking's and Greene's books on this subject and it just makes my poor brain hurt.  I should have pointed out, though, that the idea the universe we experience seems to be an ever expanding one so the idea of a "big crunch" is outdated -- or maybe it's back again?

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

E.A  Interesting how " Light " was Mentioned as the FIRST thing needed to have any change for lifeforms, but NOTE::  "  he saw the light was good " Again the BIBLE Thousands of Years ago, made a distinction between " Good and bad light " It was only recently that Science discovered that not only do we have " Light Scissors " that cut Amino Acids in the DNA so that only " left handed ones make life " but also that the EARTH needed to have " Electromagnetic SHIELDS " to protect lifeforms from the SUNS , guess what? LIGHT, Yes the light has to be " good " or filtered to make OUR life possible!!

 Amazing from a " Old Book Written by Man " so long long long time ago!!

Again the BIBLE Thousands of Years ago, made a distinction between " Good and bad light

I don't interpret it that way. By "bad" light I assume you mean ther reference to "the darkness".

But darkness is not bad light-- because in fact it isn't light at all-- dearkness is not a form of light. Rather-- its the absence of light!

I the west we tend to think of things in terms of duality-- of some things being "good"-- and others being "bad". 

But in most Eastern philosophies* (eastern Asias) they don't think in terms of "duslity".

Look at the Yin Yang:

To the western mind Yin and Yang are opposites. But its not quite that simple.

Because if that were the case-- why does the Black have a White area inside it-- and versa-vice?

Because every "Yin" contains some "Yang"..

NO read what I said and see Krebs Cycle and " earths electromagnetic Shields " and what they do

 See also as I stated " Photonic Shears "

Amazing from a " Old Book Written by Man " so long long long time ago!!

And even older are the Vedas & other very ancint Hindu literature. 

Which, strangely enough, are quite consistent with some of the latest discoveries in modern Quantum Physics:

Modern Physics and Hindu Philosophy

There are amazing similarities between implications of theories of modern physics and ancient Hindu philosophy as expressed in Vedas and Upanishads.

A number of early pioneers in quantum theory such as Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and later Bohm, were deeply influenced by eastern mystical ideas. A number of books have been written on this subject. Fritz Capra’s book in seventies on “The Tao of Physics” started the ball rolling. More recently, physicists Subhash Kak, Amit Goswami, John Hagelin (Maharshi Mahesh Yogi’s group) and some others have published extensively on this subject.

(Link)

Of course its probably a waste of time to even mention things like this in a typical Internet discussion forum, as you got all the self-righteous, condescending, evangelical-style militant Atheists running around prostelytizing and being so obsessed with converting us to their view of religion (Atheism)-- despite their ignorance on the subject!

Any one want to continue, with Facts Vs Theory?

Any one want to continue, with Facts Vs Theory?

It's pretty pointless when your "facts" fall back on "because God" every time. 

It's pretty pointless when your "facts" fall back on "because God" every time.

E.A Interesting how " they have Eyes but do not see, they have Ears but do not hear " fitting is it not?

 What I and those with out any Bigotry see is the FACTS the SCIENCE as I pointed out and how they indeed  prove the Bible!

9   Eagle Averro 

it looks like a tardigrade:

Interesting how " they have Eyes but do not see, they have Ears but do not hear " fitting is it not?

You have no idea.  

I must get the answer to how all the animals fit on the ark.

E.A  What percentile Needed to go ON the ark?

Correct.

It's pretty pointless when your "facts" fall back on "because God" every time.

While all the time your "facts" fall back on "not because God" because "God doesn't exist".

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Ok, hell, sure; why not.  It's actually pretty fun witnessing you scramble around. 

Since we got onto the ark and Noah,  I'd like to ask why do we have fish or any other marine or aquatic animal life?  Here's the part where "God" tells Noah his plan:

So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is lled with violence because of them.  Gen. 6-13.

Since we got onto the ark and Noah,  I'd like to ask why do we have fish or any other marine or aquatic animal life?

Why not ask Bill O'Reilly-- he somewhat of an authority on the role of God's influence on our actions!

All the world’s animals had representative pairs arrive at the ark.   Even the Emperor penguins of Antarctica managed to swim all the way to the ark.  Then after the ark lands, they swim all the way back to Antarctica again.   Same with the unique animals of Australia.   The ark must have provided an intercontinental shuttle service that somehow was not mentioned in the Bible.

Antarctica managed to swim

E.A   Pinnacle of Ignorance, as to why I let those " with Wisdom " to work it out it has to do with Pangea!! ( Supercontinent )

 Have Fun!! 

Interesting.  You propose that the penguins walked that distance?     Good hypothesis, penguins are well known for their awesome land speed.

You propose that the penguins walked that distance?

E.A Not at all Just made the point of IGNORANCE and Prejudice, along with Bigotry, as to what the BIBLE says, and I was prepared to Point those out IF, the Seeded was allowed to continue the Verse by Verse Discussion to the end of that CHAPTER, as the BIBLE itself makes certain points that are FUNDAMENTAL to comprehending, the points now raised,, and they raise those points because of " Ignorance of Stated and written Facts " that are " unalienable " since they have been on RECORD for all this time!!

 Hardly something that " I can Twist " :-))

So how did the Emperor penguin couple (or couples) get to and from the ark?  Did they fly, swim, walk or catch a shuttle between Antarctica and Turkey?

Antarctica and Turkey?

E.A                                  

Again, Instead of saying " OK Lets see what the Bible in Genesis Chapter ONE says "  That can clarify that point, an ATTACK is made to one that is willing to Discuss both Science and Belief system , that make US what WE are, thanks YOU again for " Flying your Colours " Much appreciated!!

IMHO the Noah's ark story actually happened, but it was a localized event and more than likely a tsunami, the whole animals 2x2 is actually ancillary to the most important thing about the incident.  Here is a man through visions of a future event, builds and ark on dry land near a large body of water that's been rising due to glacial melt from the north, the water is infiltrating cracks and fissures of a mountain on the western shore until it collapses into the lake, the lake recedes causing the people to  laugh at him then it rushes back sweeping up everything in it's path including the ark clear up to Mt. Ararat.  The thing is to have enough faith to do this in the first place.  

likely a tsunami, the whole animals 2x2 is actually ancillary to the most important thing about the incident

E.A Excellent point, a Number if Tsunamis have occurred that could indeed be seen as a " Local Flood " and for those that where in the Midst of it, it was " The End of the World " for to them it was just that. ( Dead Sea, Canada, Great Lakes Etc: )

 See Tsunamis that the Wave was Higher then 200 Yards!

 But the Biblical Account differs Greatly, if you want to discuss that let me know

The Old Testament was written by man's interpretation of the word of God at that time, through observations, visions, and premonitions.  Adams rib for instance, at the time it was written man only knew what he could see, taste, smell, feel, and hear.  In the New Testament you have the trinity, father, son, and the Holy Spirit but are one in the same, so if you equate the father being the past, the son the present, and the Holy Spirit the future, you have God is not bound by time which brings me back to Adam's rib, to man then rib meant of the rib cage, recently someone speculated a difference in genitalia, but I say what man is missing that women have is an extra RIBonucleaic (spelling) acid.  Remember God speaks all languages but man can only interpret that which man knows.  So Noah built an ark from premonitions and visions of the future, without a God how could this be done?  If we're traveling through time without divine guidance how could Noah foretell the future?

The Old Testament was written by man's interpretation of the word of God at that time, through observations, visions, and premonitions.  Adams rib for instance, at the time it was written man only knew what he could see, taste, smell, feel, and hear.  In the New Testament you have the trinity, father, son, and the Holy Spirit but are one in the same, so if you equate the father being the past, the son the present, and the Holy Spirit the future, you have God is not bound by time which brings me back to Adam's rib, to man then rib meant of the rib cage, recently someone speculated a difference in genitalia, but I say what man is missing that women have is an extra RIBonucleaic (spelling) acid.  Remember God speaks all languages but man can only interpret that which man knows.  So Noah built an ark from premonitions and visions of the future, without a God how could this be done?  If we're traveling through time without divine guidance how could Noah foretell the future?

The Old Testament was written by man's interpretation of the word of God at that time, through observations, visions, and premonitions.  Adams rib for instance, at the time it was written man only knew what he could see, taste, smell, feel, and hear.  In the New Testament you have the trinity, father, son, and the Holy Spirit but are one in the same, so if you equate the father being the past, the son the present, and the Holy Spirit the future, you have God is not bound by time which brings me back to Adam's rib, to man then rib meant of the rib cage, recently someone speculated a difference in genitalia, but I say what man is missing that women have is an extra RIBonucleaic (spelling) acid.  Remember God speaks all languages but man can only interpret that which man knows.  So Noah built an ark from premonitions and visions of the future, without a God how could this be done?  If we're traveling through time without divine guidance how could Noah foretell the future?

Wow a time loop, didn't see that coming.

Adams rib for instance, at the time it was written man only knew what he could see, taste, smell, feel, and hear.

E.A OK what do you know about " Mitochondrial Eve "?

 What have we seen as Humanity and wars?

 Why is it that Scientist say we have all come from a " Single cell " how does the DNA Provide evidence for that?

 So then A wise " Creator " could understand the need for a Single DNA, not only for those times but for eternity, was that erroneous?

Mitochondrial Eve and Eve of Adam and Eve are two separate entities. Adam and Eve were the first marriage and the knowledge they gained was genetics which eliminated inbreeding caused by the powerful men gathering haraams.  Through arranged marriages their offspring became genetically stronger mentally and physically and through collective inheritance financially too.

Revelations wars and rumors of wars, well we've seen that and it is still happening, insects that sting and keep stinging forcing people to hide in the mountains well that has happened and continuing to happen (at the time it was written man couldn't fly so the helicopters and jets had to be insects), the dead rising and walking the earth you would think that would be impossible but it has happened and still happening, zombie movies and tv shows.

If we find life elsewhere it will be RNA and DNA based.

Life on earth has been guided to the point that it needs to leave earth and we are the ones chosen to accomplish the task.  That is the meaning and purpose of life.

Mitochondrial Eve and Eve of Adam and Eve are two separate entities.

E.A   If You says so " No Good beating a dead Horse "

               If we find life elsewhere it will be RNA and DNA based

Err NO, and that is because neither can exist without a " Membrane " Do a Net Check  for decades I was known as " Mr Membrane "  there was " Mr Chip " and  his minion " Darwin "  we had fun with Science and FACTS

Any one want to continue, with Facts Vs Theory?

On a site like this, where most everyone os so darn sure that they're right about everything, its probably hopeless. In my experience trying to have a honest discussion with the KIA's ("know it alls") is a fools errand:

There are none so blind as those who will not see

• 1546, J. HeywoodWho is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That wilfully will nother here nor see.
• 1547, Borde Brev. of Helthe, bk ii fo. viWho is blynder than he yt wyl nat se.

goddidit

Don't ask where God came from, the buck stops with him.

In the beginning there was the word . . .

And the word was . . . BAZINGA!

Calvin, my alter ego and mentor, over there to the left, called it the BIG KABLOOEY!

Hobbs concurred.

the BIG KABLOOEY!

E.A and yet so many " take that as a Gospel Truth " Live their life and " bet " their death on it, a theory with ZERO Facts and science to back it, now THAT is " Blind Faith "!

IE: Explain Protoplanet formation :-)

Actually the ''Big Bang'' took place in the backseat of my 1949 Ford Flathead 8.

It was a bang to remember.

Sorry Kathleen, I couldn't resist.

Pretty fascinating video that illustrates just how vast space really is. Read the description first. It's 45 mins long but you get the idea after a couple of minutes.. Ok, so the description is hidden I guess but... It's a video of what it would be like to travel away from the sun at the speed of light. 

vimeo

The Universe is truly amazing.  I look up at the night sky and the stars that we see are all in our galaxy.  If you can locate the Andromeda Galaxy (the Galaxy closest to the Milky Way)......It looks like a small fuzzy star.  It is the farthest object away from us that we can see with our naked eye.  With a good pair of Binoculars you can see it's shape and can tell it isn't just a star.  To think that tiny speck is the size of our galaxy.....blows my mind......then think about all the Billions of Galaxy's off in the distance that we can't see with the naked eye.......it's hard to comprehend the shear unimaginable vastness of our Universe.

Hi TAP.   Agreed, reality is fascinating.   Better than anything we dream up in our science fiction.

Howdy TiG......Good to see you here.....This is a very interesting topic.  I like to hear the different opinions....It is fun to think about different Theories about this awesome Universe that we live in.  It boggles the mind to explain things like empty space and infinity (including infinitely small).  Not only is the Universe unbelievably large.......it is also made up of unbelievably small objects.......How it all came to be.....Why it came to be......etc is challenging to ponder.

It's way past my bedtime......Have a good one and hope to chat with you again!

It boggles the mind

And the more we discover the more we realize that our reality is an illusion.

Now that is intriguing.....please elaborate.

I will have to leave soon.....so I will not be able to respond till later.....

Have a Great Day!

Now that is intriguing.....please elaborate.

For example, look up quantum entanglement or the holographic principle.   The former is determined science, the latter is hypothesis.

What came before the Big Bang? Best I can tell it was "The Class". CBS didn't pick it up for the 2007 season.. 

Alternate answer:

Ec²