The Beginning?

Christians and most Religious people believe in a Creator, a deity that created all that we see and know about.  Christians call that deity God.  There are also many that believe in Evolution and that everything extended from a "Big Bang" event that was the most massive release of energy ever but even though scientist, or many, speak so dogmatically about how things happened they all really are guessing and making statements of, their own, faith in how things happened. 

 

For Christians and most religious people there is no beginning but rather belief/opinion that God always has existed and never has had a beginning.  That, I propose, is a concept that any human mind cannot grasp, define, or conceive of just like conception of there being no end or an eternity future is a concept that mankind cannot really understand or conceive of.  That being said if you happen to be one who adheres to an event such as "The Big Bang" then the question that has to be answered is WHERE did the energy come from that somehow sparked this Big Bang?  Where did the elements come from that caused all this to happen?

 

Speaking for my own belief, and standpoint, I do accept and believe that an all powerful God/Deity brought about physical creation from out of the Spiritual Realm itself if but from nothing more than God Thought or God's own desire/imagination.  I accept it on faith because I cannot define it or explain it nor do I believe and human being can comprehend or define what actually happened or how it happened or the source from which it came.  Science can't seem to conceive of even a Spiritual realm apart from the physical of which we all are part of and belong. 

 

Maybe it's all issues of philosophy but in the end we all exercise faith in something for none of us has come up with knowledge or an opinion that is solely of our own selves and unique to our own minds.  So the real question is whom do you have faith in?

Be as the Bereans ( Acts 17:11 )
Original Post

Here are some websites where you can learn about the Big Bang Theory:

 

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-...of-the-universe.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/...Big_Bang_Primer.html

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~y.../BigBang/BigBang.htm

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/ast...ology/inflation.html

 

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/i...itle=God_of_the_gaps

 

A God of the gaps argument is one that argues that since some phenomenon is unexplained, it must be due to God. It is also a form of non sequitur, since the hand of God is posited without proof and often with complete disregard to other possible explanations.

 

Background

Sometimes a subject such as evolution is not understood by the speaker but may be well understood by many others, such as scientists. Of course, evolution is not a theory of chance, and has well established mechanisms underlying it.

For Bill O'Reilly: The moon causes the tides, due to gravitational tidal effects as it revolves around the earth.[1]

Even when a subject is not well understood (i.e., the origin of the universe), that is not sufficient grounds for assuming an unproven answer like "God did it". Since the "explanation" of God is more complex than the entities that are purportedly explained by God, introducing God without evidence is simply begging the question.

There is a time where people need to understand that there are certain things that we currently do not possess the technology to know about. This is where the dreaded truth must come in - I don't know.

Examples

  • "Scientists can't explain how life came to be. There must have been a god to create the first life form."
  • "The Big Bang theory doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang. There must have been a god to set the universe in motion."
  • "The bacterial flagellum is too complex to have evolved through natural means. Therefore, an intelligent designer must have been involved in its formation."
  • "Even if the theory of evolution is correct, it doesn't explain how the first life form arose. Perhaps God's hand created life and set evolution in motion."
  • "Scientists can't explain everything about how consciousness arises, therefore something divine must be at work in conscious beings."
  • "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in." [2]

Counter-apologetics

Unstated premise

The argument from ignorance is, at heart, an Enthymeme, a syllogism with an unstated premise:

  1. I don't understand how x could have happened.
  2. Anything I don't understand is caused by God.
  3. Therefore, God caused x.

(unstated premise highlighted.)

 

Gaps are shrinking

A god of the gaps argument is an argument from ignorance: it boils down to "We do not know how X happened, therefore X was caused by a god." However, ignorance is never an argument for something. It merely means we do not (yet) know the cause of the phenomenon.

To see why this argument is a fallacy, we can consider similar arguments could have been made at different points in human history:

  • 2000 years ago: "We do not know what causes lightning, therefore it must be a god throwing lightning bolts from the sky."
  • 1000 years ago: "We do not know what keeps the planets in their courses. There must be angels pushing them along."
  • 500 years ago: "We do not know what causes diseases, therefore they must be punishments from God."
  • 200 years ago: "We do not know how the many species of plants and animals could have appeared, therefore God must have created them."
  • 100 years ago: "We do not know how the universe started, therefore God must have done it."
  • 60 years ago: "We do not know how genes are passed from parent to child, therefore traits must be imprinted upon the soul."

As new explanations emerge, the gaps in our knowledge shrink, leaving less and less room in which to fit a god. Since human knowledge keeps growing all the time, it does not seem like a safe bet to assume that any given gap will remain one for very long.

An insufficient explanation

Another objection can be made to the argument's means of ignoring the question it originally intends to answer. For example, answering "What caused the big bang?" with "God did it" still does not answer the question of origins, as the god inserted into the gap still requires an explanation.

How, not What

Theists are frequently intolerant of scientific concepts that seek to provide naturalistic explanations. It is not difficult to reach a "compromise" where the theist adopts the full scientific explanation without challenge. By asking the theist "How did God do this?", the theist generally becomes receptive to the scientific explanation.

By presenting arguments in a manner that theists can accept, they gain knowledge, which is always poisonous to theistic belief.

Wrong Premise

The real question isn't "Is it possible that God exists in the unknown?" it's "Is it probable?" We should be concerned with whether or not a thing is actually true or likely true - not whether it's possibly true.

A Leap of Faith

Even if there is some supernatural being behind what science can't explain, what proof is there that it is the God of Classical Theism rather than Zeus, or Amun Ra, or Cthulhu?

Since there is no possibility that the universe was the result of creation then we must argue that it came from nothing, lets call it a  a big bang. Never mind that that premise is untested we must find evidence for a big bang from before there was a tested fact. Let us call it the facts of gaps.

 

We must ask ourselves how far prior to the big bang must we search for a single fact before we can conclude we have reached a point that proves there were no facts prior to a big bang?

 

If we argue that there existed a singularity prior to the big bang and it was a fact we must assume there were facts before the singularity and at some point prior to those facts there were no facts.

 

The facts of gaps.

 

The argument that God was a fact with no prior facts to God makes just as must sense as a singularity with no prior facts or that there are an infinite number of facts prior to either case.

 

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
      Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
      And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
      The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
      And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
      The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
      He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
      Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
      He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

The big bang cannot be considered intrinsic to the fact that the universe does exist because it cannot be demonstrated nor falsified by the scientific method.

Lets consider. Premise 1. the universe exists and embodied. Premise 2. A singularity existed before the big bang and embodied only by a rule that has a rule
which explains that rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explains that rule and so on to infinity.
Therefore the universe exists and is equal to the singularity which exists by a rule. Premise 3. God exists and embodied by a rule which is explained by a rule
which has a rule which explaines that rule that has a rule which explains that rule and so on into infinity.
Premise 4. God and the singularity are embodied buy a rule that has a rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explaines that rule
and to infinity.
Premise 5. Since the rules are infinite there is at some point where a rule in one catagore is equal to a rule in the other catagore.
Premise 6. The existing universe must be by some rule be the same as the singularity and God exists by some rule which is equal to some rule allowing for the
singularity then God, the universe and the singularity are the same thing by some rule that has a rule which explains that rule which has a rule which explains
that rule and so on to infinity.

Conclusion: No message is intrinsic that we can prove.

CB, your pseudo-philosophical babble is less comprehensible than Carroll's Jabberwocky:
 
" ’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe."
 
But lets examine it any way
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

The big bang cannot be considered intrinsic to the fact that the universe does exist because it cannot be demonstrated nor falsified by the scientific method.

 

Wrong.  Cosmic inflation is proven by repeated scientific observation and confirmed by quantum mathematical models and the predictions drawn from these models and later observed. 

 

Lets consider. Premise 1. the universe exists and embodied.

 

Without a doubt.

 

Premise 2. A singularity existed before the big bang and embodied only by a rule that has a rule which explains that rule which has a rule that explains that rule which has a rule which explains that rule and so on to infinity.  Therefore the universe exists and is equal to the singularity which exists by a rule.

 

Scientists do not know exactly what existed or the characteristics of it before the Planck time (10 to the -43 power seconds after cosmic inflation began.)  Quantum mathematics are unable to model this time period.  To call it a singularity is most likely an erroneous statement.

 

Please state the rule that embodies this erroneously stated singularity, and the next rule, and the next rule...  Unless these rules can be stated any following premise that includes a reference to these rules can be summarily dismissed.

 

Premise 3. God exists and embodied by a rule which is explained by a rule which has a rule which explaines that rule that has a rule which explains that rule and so on into infinity.

 

There is no substantial evidence that God exists.  Therefore, this is an erroneous premise, and any following premise that includes God can be summarily dismissed.

 

(premises summarily dismissed.)

 

Conclusion: No message is intrinsic that we can prove.

 

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur to your thesis, therefore your thesis is unproven and your conclusion is meaningless.

 

and...I'm not claiming the big bang occurred. I deny it ever happened. I'm simply pointing out the instability of the thought processes claiming it did. These notions such as the big bang have pieces of information pulled out by some rule but that rule has rules of explanation regarding how to apply the first rule too much pulling is putting in  more information than is taken out. When is a thing not always the same. Is a meaning inherent in a message or manufactured by the interaction?

CB, your pseudo-philosophical psycho-babble is founded in a reducto ad adsurdum argument which falls apart without the baseless premise of God. 

 

The thought process leading to cosmic inflation (or more commonly know as Big Bang) theory is based in well document observational data from as early as 1929 and quantum mechanic mathematical models.  The observations support an expanding universe (red shift of distant galaxies), a super hot primordial universe (cosmic background radiation) and the quantum mathematical models support these observations. 

No black holes, no singularity, no big bang.

Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not existhttp://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

 

THE BLACK HOLE INFORMATION PARADOX 

One of the biggest unanswered questions about black holes is the so-called information paradox.

Under current theories for black holes it is thought that nothing can escape from the event horizon around a black hole - not even light itself.

Inside the black hole is thought to be a singularity where matter is crushed to an infinitesimally small point as predicted by Einstein's theory of gravity.

However, a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear.

This creates a paradox; how can a black hole make matter and information 'disappear'? 

Professor Mersini-Houghton's new theory manages to explain why this might be so - namely because black holes as we know them cannot exist. 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...t.html#ixzz3YYIiaip1 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://scienceblogs.com/starts...-bang-wont-work-won/

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525

Particle creation leading to Hawking radiation is produced by the changing gravitational field of the collapsing star. The two main initial conditions in the far past placed on the quantum field from which particles arise, are the Hartle Hawking vacuum and the Unruh vacuum. The former leads to a time symmetric thermal bath of radiation, while the latter to a flux of radiation coming out of the collapsing star. The energy of Hawking radiation in the interior of the collapsing star is negative and equal in magnitude to its value at future infinity. This work investigates the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the interior of a gravitationally collapsing star, in a Hartle-Hawking initial vacuum. It shows that due to the negative energy Hawking radiation in the interior, the collapse of the star stops at a finite radius, before the singularity and the event horizon of a black hole have a chance to form. That is, the star bounces instead of collapsing to a black hole. A trapped surface near the last stage of the star's collapse to its minimum size may still exist temporarily. Its formation depends on the details of collapse. Results for the case of Hawking flux of radiation with the Unruh initial state, will be given in a companion paper II.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1837

A star collapsing gravitationally into a black hole emits a flux of radiation, knowns as Hawking radiation. When the initial state of a quantum field on the background of the star, is placed in the Unruh vacuum in the far past, then Hawking radiation corresponds to a flux of positive energy radiation travelling outwards to future infinity. The evaporation of the collapsing star can be equivalently described as a negative energy flux of radiation travelling radially inwards towards the center of the star. Here, we are interested in the evolution of the star during its collapse. Thus we include the backreaction of the negative energy Hawking flux in the interior geometry of the collapsing star and solve the full 4-dimensional Einstein and hydrodynamical equations numerically. We find that Hawking radiation emitted just before the star passes through its Schwarzschild radius slows down the collapse of the star and substantially reduces its mass thus the star bounces before reaching the horizon. The area radius starts increasing after the bounce. Beyond this point our program breaks down due to shell crossing. We find that the star stops collapsing at a finite radius larger than its horizon, turns around and its core explodes. This study provides a more realistic investigation of the backreaction of Hawking radiation on the collapsing star, that was first presented in [1].

The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-b...on-universe.html#jCp

 

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginninghttp://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

No Big Bang? New Equation Suggests Eternal Universehttp://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/06/no-big-bang-new-equation-suggests-eternal-universe/

 

It Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t FoundIt Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t Foundwww.universetoday.com/118636/it-turns-out-primordial-gravitational-waves-werent-found/

 

A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data

We report the results of a joint analysis of data from BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck. BICEP2 and Keck Array have observed the same approximately 400 deg2patch of sky centered on RA 0h, Dec. 57.5deg. The combined maps reach a depth of 57 nK deg in Stokes Q and U in a band centered at 150 GHz. Planck has observed the full sky in polarization at seven frequencies from 30 to 353 GHz, but much less deeply in any given region (1.2 μK deg in Q and U at 143 GHz). We detect 150×353 cross-correlation in B-modes at high significance. We fit the single- and cross-frequency power spectra at frequencies 150 GHz to a lensed-ΛCDM model that includes dust and a possible contribution from inflationary gravitational waves (as parameterized by the tensor-to-scalar ratio r), using a prior on the frequency spectral behavior of polarized dust emission from previous \planck\ analysis of other regions of the sky. We find strong evidence for dust and no statistically significant evidence for tensor modes. We probe various model variations and extensions, including adding a synchrotron component in combination with lower frequency data, and find that these make little difference to the r constraint. Finally we present an alternative analysis which is similar to a map-based cleaning of the dust contribution, and show that this gives similar constraints. The final result is expressed as a likelihood curve for r, and yields an upper limit r0.05<0.12 at 95% confidence. Marginalizing over dust and r, lensing B-modes are detected at 7.0σ significance.http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00612
when it comes to big bang ripples, all we have is dust in the wind. In March of last year, a team of astronomers working with the BICEP2 telescope at the South Pole caused a flurry of excitement when they claimed to have discovered evidence for primordial gravitational waves, ripples in space-time triggered by a growth spurt in the universe’s early days. However, a leaked press release has teased the results from a long-awaited joint analysis between BICEP2 and a European space telescope team, the Planck collaboration. As many had feared, the release says that the signal was caused by something much more mundane: dust.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...#jPBctJDvKLx4K1eb.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Originally Posted by Ubu:

OldSalt, your thoughts on this?

 

http://www.worldscientific.com...42/S0218271814500588

 

Many Thanks in Advance.

----------------------------------

An interesting abstract.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to the complete article.

 

As the authors said:

 

"We do not claim that the consistency of the adopted model with SB data is sufficient by itself to confirm what would be a radical transformation in our understanding of the cosmos. 

However, we believe this result is more than sufficient reason to examine this combination of hypotheses further."

In other words, the authors do not claim their findings overturns cosmic expansion theory, but should studied further.
Any Static Universe theory must be able to explain observational data including Cosmic Background Radiation and Hubble's red shift.
Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

No black holes, no singularity, no big bang.

Carolina’s Laura Mersini-Houghton shows that black holes do not existhttp://uncnews.unc.edu/2014/09/23/carolinas-laura-mersini-houghton-shows-black-holes-exist/

 


 

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginninghttp://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html

No Big Bang? New Equation Suggests Eternal Universehttp://21stcenturywire.com/2015/03/06/no-big-bang-new-equation-suggests-eternal-universe/

 

It Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t FoundIt Turns Out Primordial Gravitational Waves Weren’t Foundwww.universetoday.com/118636/it-turns-out-primordial-gravitational-waves-werent-found/

 

A Joint Analysis of BICEP2/Keck Array and Planck Data

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Old news CB, and these have yet to have any impact of Cosmic Inflation Theory.

.....no primordial waves has nothing to do with cosmic inflation? 

Inflation is dead, long live inflation! The very results hailed this year as demonstrating a consequence of inflationary models of the universe – andtherefore pointing to the existence of multiverses – now seem to do the exact opposite. If the results can be trusted at all, they now suggest inflation is wrong, raising the possibility of cyclic universes that existed before the big bang.

In March experimentalists announced that primordial gravitational waves had been discovered. The team behind the BICEP2 Telescope in Antarctica had observed telltale twists and turns in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) – the remnants of the earliest light produced in the universe.

Physicists thought the discovery was preliminary confirmation of inflation: the idea that for a sliver of a moment after the big bang there was a blisteringly fast expansion of the universe. The theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.

But very quickly, the BICEP2 finding was shrouded in doubt, as it was revealed that the polarisation pattern could have been caused by cosmic dust. Cosmologists are waiting for space-based Planck telescope to reveal whether the dust could really make that pattern, and preliminary results released last week suggest dust might be able to.

 

Not to mention symmetry breaking and the universe being full of stuff and no anti stuff which would have occurred had there been cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.Stephen Hawking has set the world of physics back on its heels by reversing his lifetime’s work and a pillar of modern physics claiming that black holes do not exist – saying that the idea of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole --the awesome gravitational pull created by the collapse of a star will be so strong that nothing can break free including light-- is flawed. Hawking proposes that instead of an inescapable event horizon, we should think of an “apparent horizon”.www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

_____________

Wow!!  So good it had to be said twice!

..............besides......a cosmic inflation only re-enforces the Biblical explanation that God spoke the universe into existence which would have occurred within metrics unknown and totally foreign  to our understanding of present physical laws. It therefore is just as reliable a theory to equate cosmic inflation to "God Speake".

Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

..............besides......a cosmic inflation only re-enforces the Biblical explanation that God spoke the universe into existence which would have occurred within metrics unknown and totally foreign  to our understanding of present physical laws. It therefore is just as reliable a theory to equate cosmic inflation to "God Speake".

--------------------------------

If this is true, then it is just as reliable to say that the universe is a dung beetle's ball of dung.

Also we should mention the "fine tuned" conditions necessary in such a narrow range that if varied from the tiniest fraction would have made the universe as we know it
absolutely an impossible outcome. We can only conclude an intelligent design as the source in this model. [me]

Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

Also we should mention the "fine tuned" conditions necessary in such a narrow range that if varied from the tiniest fraction would have made the universe as we know it
absolutely an impossible outcome. We can only conclude an intelligent design as the source in this model. [me]

--------------------

If the universe is so fine tuned for life, why is it that we cannot live in 99.999999.... percent of it without artificial life support systems?  There is no fine tuning, just coincidental zones where life can exist.

.....actually i don't mind what one calls God's creation big bang or whatever but it seems that the creation detractors are witnessing science describe a universe of intelligent design.

 

I'm quite confident scientist make their appointed rounds regardless of what gets credit.

Originally Posted by OldSalt:
Originally Posted by CountryBoy:

Also we should mention the "fine tuned" conditions necessary in such a narrow range that if varied from the tiniest fraction would have made the universe as we know it
absolutely an impossible outcome. We can only conclude an intelligent design as the source in this model. [me]

--------------------

If the universe is so fine tuned for life, why is it that we cannot live in 99.999999.... percent of it without artificial life support systems?  There is no fine tuning, just coincidental zones where life can exist.

Because it is fine tuned.

 

The fine tuning i was referring to was what was required for cosmic inflation.

There is no mystery to what happened in the beginning. The Holy Writ explains the beginning so simply anyone should understand it.

Let us investigate the evidence.

In Genesis 1 the Bible states: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

In this statement the term "earth" represents matter which we can see.

The term heavens represents what we cannot see.

There was no form or no geometry to anything.

The "deep" was "darkness"

 

The "deep" we know today was and is dark energy and dark matter that has been around always.

When the Spirit of God moved in the dark energy and matter that movement caused energy to discharge from the dark matter causally and gave off enormous sparks of energy within the visible spectrum and heat spectrum causing points in the entire dark matter to form galaxies that we observe today.

The Bible starts with dark energy and matter as being here already.

 

This analogy has no need for an "event horizon" no worry about "mono-poles" because dark matter likely was made of "mono-poles" and once they were disturbed by the "Spirit" [or opposite polarity] of God this lightning storm began homogeneously and is still popping galaxies into being as we speak.

It is so simple a cave-man understood it and wrote it down for us to see.

And you claim you will not simply use "God did it", yet is you distill what you stated down to its fundamental form all you have is "god did it."

 

What, are you just another liar for Christ?

 

This is what happens when one believes as irreducible true the creation myth of a Neolithic Semitic people. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×