There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[Yoder777]

Lawrence Krauss has shown that the universe arose from nothingness, with no outside cause:
http://crackingthenutshell.com/the-fall-of-materialism/

 

[Yoder777]

Lawrence Krauss, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, Professor of Physics and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, joins David to discuss the history of the universe, what existed “before” the universe, and whether the “beginning” of the universe is a relevant term

 

[SkyWriting]

Ummm, because I don't believe the earth is flat, supported by pillars, with a dome over it which has stars embedded in it, stars that will one day fall to earth. That's what the bible says and means. Modern books, books written by people who understand modern cosmology, who have a decent education, do not make these mistakes. Does that clear it up?

Perhaps you don't know the definition of a falling star?
"Shooting stars" and "falling stars" are both names that describe meteors.

Odd. You'd think the navy would mention
that the earth turns, rather than the sun rising
and setting.

OR PERHAPS PEOPLE USE "APPARENT" LANGUAGE ON SUCH TOPICS
REGARDLESS OF WHAT SCIENTISTS SAY ABOUT REALITY?

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneYear.php

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is the usual atheist position which I hear in such arguments. There was nothing and then suddenly there was protozoan or amoebic lifeforms which evolved into life.

Negatory, proteins form on their own in nature, as do many compounds, as they are more stable than their elemental components in their pure state. Also, they would have most likely been ancient bacteria-like cells, not protozoa or amoebas, which are eukaryotic and would not appear for millions of years after the first life.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I suppose with that dating scheme you all use to calculate backwards in time you don't want to include Relativity in it in a universe undergoing an increasing acceleration?

 

[Aman777]

Negatory, proteins form on their own in nature, as do many compounds, as they are more stable than their elemental components in their pure state. Also, they would have most likely been ancient bacteria-like cells, not protozoa or amoebas, which are eukaryotic and would not appear for millions of years after the first life.

Amen, but it takes air, dust and water, which God created in the beginning, for matter to exist. That may sound silly until you realize that our Cosmos contains the SAME air, dust and water brought about by the Big Bang, of the same materials, on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 When they cooled, the became the physical matter of our Cosmos. Amen?

 

[justlookinla]

Lawrence Krauss has shown that the universe arose from nothingness, with no outside cause:
http://crackingthenutshell.com/the-fall-of-materialism/

No he hasn't.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

No he hasn't.

It is your contra-argument? More details, brother. Let us see the historic perspective. Many centuries to call someone "atheist" was the same as my ban because of "you are sick in the mind". Now it is acceptable even with Christians. To be atheist seems like being special, it feels great. The discovery of singularity was rejected by atheists, because it meant "God am". Now the atheists consider us so stupid, because of "Throne Game" and other empty TV shows, what it is "No God" again.

 

[Gene2memE]

Amen, but it takes air, dust and water, which God created in the beginning, for matter to exist. That may sound silly until you realize that our Cosmos contains the SAME air, dust and water brought about by the Big Bang, of the same materials, on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 When they cooled, the became the physical matter of our Cosmos. Amen?

Air, dust and water are all complex molecules. To get them, you need stars and supernovae and planets.

According to the current Standard Model, these came into being some time about 550 million to 1.1 billion years after the Big Bang.

According to current theories, the earliest element was hydrogen, formed via nucleosynthesis. Once you have hydrogen, you get helium, deuterium, tritium, lithium and beryllium forming. All elements heavier than lithium and beryllium were formed via nuclear fusion (stellar nucleosynthesis) and then ejected out across the rest of the universe via the supernovae of the first generation of stars. Once you get sufficient amounts of these heavier elements interacting, then you start to get complex molecules like air and water forming.

The Standard Model doesn't provide a perfect explanation of elemental formation, but its pretty darn close.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Amen, but it takes air, dust and water, which God created in the beginning, for matter to exist. That may sound silly until you realize that our Cosmos contains the SAME air, dust and water brought about by the Big Bang, of the same materials, on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 When they cooled, the became the physical matter of our Cosmos. Amen?

Ah, not water, that existed before the creating part took place, the "vast waters" as they are called are never stated to be a material god creates.

 

[Aman777]

Air, dust and water are all complex molecules. To get them, you need stars and supernovae and planets.

You are speaking of the air, dust and water of our Universe. I am speaking of the air, dust and water created BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:1-2

Gene:>>According to the current Standard Model, these came into being some time about 550 million to 1.1 billion years after the Big Bang.

Amen. This gives us a time measurement, which can be compared to God's "Days" or periods of labor. The Big Bang was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4, since the first Stars did NOT put forth their light until some 550 million years, in man's time, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Gene:>>According to current theories, the earliest element was hydrogen, formed via nucleosynthesis. Once you have hydrogen, you get helium, deuterium, tritium, lithium and beryllium forming. All elements heavier than lithium and beryllium were formed via nuclear fusion (stellar nucleosynthesis) and then ejected out across the rest of the universe via the supernovae of the first generation of stars. Once you get sufficient amounts of these heavier elements interacting, then you start to get complex molecules like air and water forming.

The Standard Model doesn't provide a perfect explanation of elemental formation, but its pretty darn close.

Genesis does give a perfect explanation of these elements since they came as a result of God's speaking and changing the light/energy in His world into the air, dust and water of the physical world. Jesus took some of these elements and changed them back into energy, which cooled and formed our Universe. Thus the innerds of the first Stars were scattered over our entire Cosmos and with gravity were brought back together into the Universe as we see it today, including us, since we are all star stuff.

 

[Aman777]

Ah, not water, that existed before the creating part took place, the "vast waters" as they are called are never stated to be a material god creates.

Amen, but water was created before the first day because it was a part of the "heaven" or air, which God created in Gen 1:1. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen or two gases within the air, and Scripture correctly shows that water was NOT created, but formed from the air.

It's unusual to see that someone else has noticed that God created the heaven/air and earth without form/dust, and EVERYTHING, including water, came forth from these creation elements. Such insight reveals the thinking of a really smart person, like yourself. God Bless you

 

[justlookinla]

It is your contra-argument? More details, brother. Let us see the historic perspective. Many centuries to call someone "atheist" was the same as my ban because of "you are sick in the mind". Now it is acceptable even with Christians. To be atheist seems like being special, it feels great. The discovery of singularity was rejected by atheists, because it meant "God am". Now the atheists consider us so stupid, because of "Throne Game" and other empty TV shows, what it is "No God" again.

The New York Times reviewer did a great job of dismissing Krauss' book.....

"Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...e-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0

​

 

[Aman777]

The New York Times reviewer did a great job of dismissing Krauss' book.....

"Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. Period. Case closed. End of story. I kid you not. Look at the subtitle. Look at how Richard Dawkins sums it up in his afterword: “Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?,’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If ‘On the Origin of Species’ was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see ‘A Universe From Nothing’ as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...e-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
​

The Bible does NOT teach that matter came from nothing. Instead, it shows what Einstein discovered thousands of years later. Since God lives a world of Light, 1Ti 6:16 He simply changed a little bit of that energy into matter in Gen 1:1. Remember that the details of this event are shown later in Scripture and here are the details:

Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
Word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Jesus IS the Word of God and the framer of our Cosmos, of which Planet Earth is a part. He made our physical world from the air, dust and water, God created (changed from energy into matter) BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:1 IOW, Jesus caused the Big Bang of our Cosmos, thus fulfilling this verse:

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

Amen?

​

 

[Gene2memE]

You are speaking of the air, dust and water of our Universe. I am speaking of the air, dust and water created BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:1-2

Amen. This gives us a time measurement, which can be compared to God's "Days" or periods of labor. The Big Bang was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4, since the first Stars did NOT put forth their light until some 550 million years, in man's time, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

Genesis does give a perfect explanation of these elements since they came as a result of God's speaking and changing the light/energy in His world into the air, dust and water of the physical world. Jesus took some of these elements and changed them back into energy, which cooled and formed our Universe. Thus the innerds of the first Stars were scattered over our entire Cosmos and with gravity were brought back together into the Universe as we see it today, including us, since we are all star stuff.

These are three of the more insane things I've read this year. What you wrote bears no relation to any coherent interpretation of the Genesis account, nor any scientific description of the early life of the universe. Not even remotely.

Don't you also keeps arguing that humans popped out of an alternate universe, as is, and into the Middle East/Levant about 14,000 years ago?

Congratulations then, it seems like you're on your way to developing your own bizarre Christian denomination and your own branch of the sciences (using only the loosest possible interpretation of the word).

Good luck with that.

 

[Aman777]

↑
1. You are speaking of the air, dust and water of our Universe. I am speaking of the air, dust and water created BEFORE the first Day. Gen 1:1-2
↑
2. Amen. This gives us a time measurement, which can be compared to God's "Days" or periods of labor. The Big Bang was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4, since the first Stars did NOT put forth their light until some 550 million years, in man's time, on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16
↑
3. Genesis does give a perfect explanation of these elements since they came as a result of God's speaking and changing the light/energy in His world into the air, dust and water of the physical world. Jesus took some of these elements and changed them back into energy, which cooled and formed our Universe. Thus the innerds of the first Stars were scattered over our entire Cosmos and with gravity were brought back together into the Universe as we see it today, including us, since we are all star stuff.

These are three of the more insane things I've read this year. What you wrote bears no relation to any coherent interpretation of the Genesis account, nor any scientific description of the early life of the universe. Not even remotely.

Correction. It doesn't agree with YOUR interpretation which is obviously flawed. I suppose we could say that it goes against your religion. (belief)

1. In the beginning God created the heaven/air and the earth/ground. And the ground was without form and void/empty and darkness/death was upon the face of the water. Our Solar system did not form until some 9 Billion years AFTER this event, on the 3rd Day/Age. Gen 2:4

2. I was referring to the Fact that it was only 550 million years, on a 4.5 Billion year, in man's time, or Day, in God's time, the 3rd Day/Age in the creation of the perfect Heaven. This gives us an idea of HOW long Adam was with Jesus BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos. A better measurement shows that Adam lived for some 10 Billion years BEFORE any other living creature was created from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

3. Even Carl Sagan agrees with me that we are all made of star stuff. What problem do you have with this Truth?


*****Don't you also keeps arguing that humans popped out of an alternate universe, as is, and into the Middle East/Levant about 14,000 years ago?

No. You must have me confused with someone who CANNOT support their views with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History. I can.

****Congratulations then, it seems like you're on your way to developing your own bizarre Christian denomination and your own branch of the sciences (using only the loosest possible interpretation of the word).

Good luck with that.

I have no intention of doing such a thing. I've been online for almost 20 years trying to tell everyone the Truth of what Genesis actually says, instead of what religion and science have told you it says. God hid His Truth until the last days before He returns by keeping any understanding of Genesis from people who have not noticed how much knowledge has increased. He tells us His secret in this verse:

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

No man can truly understand Genesis who is not cognizant of the latest discoveries of Science. It's proof that we are indeed, in these last days before Jesus returns, when Science will finally discover the scientific and historic Truth written in Genesis. The more which is known will confirm what God told us in Genesis chapter one. Amen?

 

[tumbleweedangel2]

"Using this as a final key to revealing how the universe created itself....the universe gets smaller until it comes to a point where the whole universe is in a space so small that it is "in effect a single infinitesimally small, infinitesimally dense black hole."
So in other words over thousands of years....(millions even), the earth grew....OK. So why is it not growing still? Everything should be growing larger in size according to this theory. Our scientific research should show even fractional growth. If matter can not created nor destroyed... Where did this matter come from to even start the big bang..

 

[Dmitri Martila]

The New York Times reviewer did a great job of dismissing Krauss' book.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/b...e-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0​

I can add, what instable vacuum violates the local Energy Conservation law. Thus, the singularity is not natural process. Moreover, the empty space shrinking to zero can not be measured in the singularity of space-time curvature. Thus, it is also not natural process.
Secondly, the God can still be there, thus, the atheism is not proved. If the theism is not proved too, we have zero knowledge. Knowledge we have. Thus, there is all-knowing God.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Where did this matter come from to even start the big bang..

In fact the God has created heaven and Earth at 5508 B.C. No Big Bang, brother! Hereby the matter (and space-time) was created by Holy Trinity from Nothing. Stick closer to your faith, brother!!! The atheists might look nice and furry, but their kind has killed Jesus Christ! They will kill your eternal life without any blink of conscience.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

Dear theists, please say, what you like my latter comments. Wrong atheists, please say, what you hate my latter comments. Can you do this favor to me?