What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

It was a load of asylum seekers breaking through from another dimension, they being black disguised themselves as a huge hole and the void of our universe could not have, and should not have, been able to handle such a hole which was neither welcome or warranted and was such a drain on our dimension that the thing fell apart.

 

Given that none of you could prove otherwise maybe this was in fact the case ?

Black people didn't exits then. Nothing existed.. not even colour prejudice.

[hard2miss]

Black people didn't exits then. Nothing existed.. not even colour prejudice.

Cmon, I know that, but how do a form a link between Griffin and black holes without a leap of faith on the readers part ?...

 

oh never mind, you messed it up now anyhow.

 

A sense of humour may have been needed, Im sorry for the confusion

[Cyclone]

You seem to be focusing on just the 2 options-

 

a. universe srings into being uncaused

b. something creates (or causes) the universe

 

what about-

 

c. the universe has always existed- never was created, it's just always been here

(as in the above post, it's only a possibility on the multiverse theories, as they bypass the Big bang issue)

 

Always being there, steady state, doesn't fit any of the observable evidence. So why bother to consider it as a possibility?

[onewheeldave]

Always being there, steady state, doesn't fit any of the observable evidence. So why bother to consider it as a possibility?

 

No- I was not referring to steady state: that's a now discredited theory whereby, in the expanding universe, new matter is constantly being created to fill in the gaps as expansion continues.

 

That's very, very different to what I was talking about, which is a 'multiverse' that has simply always existed, from which the Big-bang and our current universe arose. (and which is entirely compatible with the observable evidence).

[hard2miss]

The problem with thinking about this type of argument is we think dementionaly in our universe.

 

A collision of two dimensions could leave each with one big clean up mess which could be what's happening right now and making us a product of it.

Every galaxy has a black hole at the centre is all I'm saying. I can't be bothered to look too deep into such and un provable argument myself, it would all be supposition and open to argument whatever you consider.

[danot]

You have a real problem with people presenting evidence don't you.

 

Just because you apparently along with all your other disabilities lack a long term memory and an ability to use the search function that doesn't mean others a similarly limited. I didn''t "scroll through" anything I recalled a previous exchange when you attempted to push your anti-science idiocy did a quick search and it came straight up.

You recalled a previous exchange??.. and then as sad as you are, you felt the need to go looking for it.

 

Posted by Plekhanov

Just as with your sad inability to understand basic logic never mind advanced scientific concepts you shouldn't assume that everyone lacks the ability to use a search function.

My logical reasoning hasn't failed in deducing that scrolling through old posts is extremely sad, therefore "you" are extremely sad. End of!... I'm getting the hang of this!

 

Posted by Plekhanov

But of course I realise you're the kind of person who attempts to debate really rather complex subjects like the origins of life the universe and everything without first taking the trouble to get your head round how aerofoils work, so I realise something as obvious as using the "search" button would be beyond you.

You're right, I can't get my head around any of it. But I do know how to use the search button, although I wouldn't do what you did because that would be extremely sad, and I ain't sad.

 

Posted by Plekanhov

Incidentally I didn't see so much as a single rebuttal in your post to any of the assertions I made or the evidence I used to back those assertions up. Simply an abject attempt to handwave away evidence of your earlier anti-science creationist spewings.

I've pointed out that all the evidence is freely attainable for anyone who happens to be as sad as you are and feels the need to scroll through it.

 

Posted by Plekhanov

For once in your life why don't you try engaging with actual evidence and explain why the posts I've pointed to don't suggest you're a creationist?

You've hand selected those posts because you're extremely sad, so what is there left to explain?. As I've already pointed out, all posts are attainable for sado's, like yourself to scroll through, I'm more than happy to allow any posters(as sad as you)to form their own opinion, I've nothing to hide.

[Cyclone]

No- I was not referring to steady state: that's a now discredited theory whereby, in the expanding universe, new matter is constantly being created to fill in the gaps as expansion continues.

 

That's very, very different to what I was talking about, which is a 'multiverse' that has simply always existed, from which the Big-bang and our current universe arose. (and which is entirely compatible with the observable evidence).

 

Entirely compatible but entirely without evidence either way.

A hypothesis is fairly useless if it doesn't explain some existing evidence (in the simplest way) and/or doesn't make any testable predictions.

 

We have the same problem envisioning something with no beginning though as we do imagining the beginning. The concepts of nothing and infinity are both rather hard to grasp.

[danot]

Incidentally danot we still await your explanation of why you imagine the "big bang theory" differs in any way from the "big bang Theory".

 

Just t[/b]heory""]a few hours back you seemed to think a capitalised "t" made all the difference in the world then you abruptly shut up about it, what's all that about?

I don't think they are different, but some people do.. you might even know them.. you know how to use the search button don't you.

[onewheeldave]

Entirely compatible but entirely without evidence either way.

A hypothesis is fairly useless if it doesn't explain some existing evidence (in the simplest way) and/or doesn't make any testable predictions.

 

 

True. Then again, it's no more lacking in evidence or testable predictions than the alternative theory (that the universe arose spontaneously and uncaused from absolute nothingness).

 

(I hope you've not going to mention Ockham's razor in response to this- it's becoming such a cliche )

 

 

We have the same problem envisioning something with no beginning though as we do imagining the beginning. The concepts of nothing and infinity are both rather hard to grasp.

 

Do we? I think that's a question for each individual- maybe some people can envisage something that's always existed, more than they can envisage something springing into being from nothing? (or vice versa).

[JFKvsNixon]

Evolutionary forces are always random, but the ones that give a better chance of survival are always logical if you have all available data - which we generally don't. Moreover, some mutations don't appear to be either better or worse, but just happen; and moreover yet again, having a better chance of survival doesn't necessarily mean surviving.

 

 

Applying logic to the "creature-or-egg" question, though, is very different from asking if evolution always follows a logical path. If the egg appeared before any living thing, then nothing could have laid it and so it didn't appear at all. Self-contradiction; assumption is false; the egg did not come before any living thing. Creature came before egg.

 

Exactly which creature cannot be deduced by logic alone; you need observation for that.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of the environmental factors which drive the evolutionary change as not following any logic.