Originally posted by telerion
What air?

Exactly!!!! If there had been air at least you would have something to create the BB, no? I don't think there is a scientist alive who would say that it is possible to get something from nothing. You must conceede that there are elements in our universe that are eternal that lead to the creation of the BB. It is a thing called logic.

Originally posted by telerion
I'm talking about how you use Noah's Flood to claim that decay rates were much faster in the past, to account for the very low oxygen content in old rocks, and to explain away the ordering of the fossil record. Sometimes it seems that Creationists believe that any law of physics can be altered with enough water.

I am not a creationists that attempts to question the fossil record nor the dates of rocks, rather, I question what a morning and evening are in Genesis when the sun had not even been created until the 3rd day. Is a morning and evening a literal day? I would say that most creationists hold to the idea that it is and to me it is mind boggling. Especially in light of verses such as Genesis 2:4 which say, "These are the GENERATIONS of the heavens and earth when they were created...." I wonder how one gets generations from 6 literal days?

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly!!!! If there had been air at least you would have something to create the BB, no? I don't think there is a scientist alive who would say that it is possible to get something from nothing. You must conceede that there are elements in our universe that are eternal that lead to the creation of the BB. It is a thing called logic.

There are millions of scientists alive who will tell you that in the case of the BB it is only logical to get something from nothing. Stop trying to twist the issue.

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly!!!! If there had been air at least you would have something to create the BB, no? I don't think there is a scientist alive who would say that it is possible to get something from nothing. You must conceede that there are elements in our universe that are eternal that lead to the creation of the BB. It is a thing called logic.

You certainly don't need air for the BB. Air's not even part of the theory. Maybe, maybe not I don't know. You argue that things outside our universe may not need a beginning. You have absolutely no ground (other than your arbitrary faith) to claim that the whatever caused the universe needs a beginning (if indeed our universe has a cause).

Originally posted by whodey
I am not a creationists that attempts to question the fossil record nor the dates of rocks, rather, I question what a morning and evening are in Genesis when the sun had not even been created until the 3rd day. Is a morning and evening a literal day? I would say that most creationists hold to the idea that it is and to me it is mind boggling. Especially in ...[text shortened]... and earth when they were created...." I wonder how one gets generations from 6 literal days?

I know you argue that a day in Genesis need not have been 24 hours, but when it gets right down to it you still believe in magical plants. We've been through all this before.

Originally posted by whodey
Exactly!!!! If there had been air at least you would have something to create the BB, no? I don't think there is a scientist alive who would say that it is possible to get something from nothing. You must conceede that there are elements in our universe that are eternal that lead to the creation of the BB. It is a thing called logic.

Virtual particle pairs.
These appear and disappear constantly from nothing. An electron and positron, appear from nothing borrowing energy from space, meet and annihilate, returning the borrowed energy back to space.
Now, let one of these particle pairs appear near the event horizon of a black hole and the possibility exists for one to become trapped before the pair can meet and annihilate - hence, matter is created from nothing.
Now there's more than one or two scientists that will accept this one ...

Originally posted by amannion
Virtual particle pairs.
These appear and disappear constantly from nothing. An electron and positron, appear from nothing borrowing energy from space, meet and annihilate, returning the borrowed energy back to space.
Now, let one of these particle pairs appear near the event horizon of a black hole and the possibility exists for one to become trapped befo ...[text shortened]... reated from nothing.
Now there's more than one or two scientists that will accept this one ...

Why do you assume they are moving in and out of nothing?
Couldn't it be just as valid that they are simply not some where we can
see or monitor at the moment? Unless of course your view of nothing
is different than mine, I'd say that statement should not be accepted.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do you assume they are moving in and out of nothing?
Couldn't it be just as valid that they are simply not some where we can
see or monitor at the moment? Unless of course your view of nothing
is different than mine, I'd say that statement should not be accepted.
Kelly

Evidence from particle accelerators shows that these particle pairs are appearing from nothing.
Of course, that's the interpretation, and it's just a belief isn't it KJ - but it's the interpretation that best fits the evidence (as is Evolutionary theory) and it certainly offers a possible solution to a universe appearing out of nothing.
Of course, it's a big step to go from two particles to an entire universe (sort of like microevolution versus macroevolution whatever that might be) but it demonstrates that in principle such a thing is possible.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Look, you said it yourself. The BIG BANG WAS THE ORIGIN OF [b]EVERYTHING! That means it doesn't require a precursor, because, by definition, there was nothing, not even time, before it!!!![/b]

Why is it that you don't ask questions of the BIG BANG that you would ask of any other BANG?

Originally posted by genius
do you take the theory of evolution to be the "proper" explanation? that is to say, you believe that evolution is a fact, and you would present it is such?

Yes I do.

also, i don't have my bible with me but if i remember correctly after the flood God made rocks into people. thus, not everyone is descended from Noah. also, Noah was thousands of years ago. quite a lot of generations have passed and thus enormous genetic diversity...
I didn't know that bit about new people from rocks.
But your mention of enormous genetic diversity implies that you accept that mutations take place in significant amounts without resulting in the failure of the organism. This implies you accept at least some evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You really are thick sometimes (well, all the time actually). If the BB was the start of all matter then there couldn't have been anything before. That's called [b]logic; look it up - logic.[/b]

That's a big "if" that is not required by the Big Bang idea itself.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution does not talk about how life got here, it is only a process.
The debate about that process is how did it all start, and what was
the beginning of it.
Kelly

Does this mean you accept the process as viable assuming that life got started.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why is it that you don't ask questions of the BIG BANG that you would ask of any other BANG?

Because they are by definition meaningless?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why is it that you don't ask questions of the BIG BANG that you would ask of any other BANG?

I've explained this to you countless times. I'll do it once more. Every other bang than the Big Bang happen within the universe. The big Bang, by definition, does not occur within the universe, it is the phenomenon which creates the universe. As cause and effect are properties of this universe, and only operate within the universe, trying to apply them to the Big Bang is non-sensical.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a big "if" that is not required by the Big Bang idea itself.

Go tell that to Einstein.