Young Earthers, explain this:

Originally posted by humy
...you keep de-evolving the universe
into something else which does not address its beginning it only touches the
process that is supposed to be going on now, you only talk about some other
stage as if that is the beginning ...”

now lets analyse the last bit of that i.e. “...you only talk about some other STAGE as if that is the BEGINNING ...”. (my emp ...[text shortened]... t what came before but that is no excuse to assume a god must have had something to do with it.

A causeless first step? How did that work there was no reason for something
to happen or change and yet it did anyway? No serously, where did it come
from?

You have something it is from where we don't know, it simply was, it was
doing nothing, then it did something for no reason and we get a Big Bang.

Well then my question still has not been answered and just what I said was
going to happen did. You ran backwards from a process you believe is on
going till you can go no where else and still not say where all of this came from.

That is why I said science or even the mind of man has nothing that compares
to creation. You hit a wall and have nothing to offer once you hit it, except
maybe to push the process out to some stage making the process a little longer
which also never gets you to an asnswer.

I don't think you can account for everything except to say something beyond
this universe, something not bound by it did something to make this happen.
I'll again be happy to entertain any suggestions, the only one I've ever heard
was an eternal universe so we start to take on God's nature to explain it all.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have something it is from where we don't know, it simply was, it was
doing nothing, then it did something for no reason and we get a Big Bang.

this is essentially the claims made about god.

Originally posted by humy
“...The Big Bang is an event that has matter spread through space, it does not
talk about how the matter got here, ...”

actually it does. You obviously don't know much about the big bang. Matter such as hydrogen came from energy being converted to mater in occurrence to E = MC2

“...nothing that goes from nothing to something. ...”

and nobody who has ...[text shortened]... oint in time was there 'nothing'.
Again, you obviously don't know much about the big bang.

You do know that God is the source of all energy don't you? 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
A causeless first step? How did that work there was no reason for something
to happen or change and yet it did anyway? No serously, where did it come
from?

You have something it is from where we don't know, it simply was, it was
doing nothing, then it did something for no reason and we get a Big Bang.

Well then my question still has not been answer ...[text shortened]... eard
was an eternal universe so we start to take on God's nature to explain it all.
Kelly

“...A causeless first step? ...”

that is the standard interpretation of the equations when simulating the singularity. I am not saying it is the correct one; it may or may not be and I have no personal opinion on this either way. But either way, to date, nobody has conclusively demonstrated any logical flaw nor evidence against that interpretation.

“...How did that work there was no reason for something
to happen or change and yet it did anyway? ...”

If it was causeless then it didn't “happen” or “change” as you say above. It just “was” i.e. the singularity just existed then as a brute fact.

“..No serously, where did it come from? ...”

I have already answered that in depth and yet you keep asking that again and again.
IF it was causeless then it didn't “come”.
It is like asking what land is more north than the north pole and insisting there must be an answer to the question and so there must be a land more north than the north pole -the problem with the question is that it pre-supposes a false premise.

“...You have something it is from where we don't know, it simply was, it was
doing nothing, then it did something for no reason and we get a Big Bang. ...”

none of that is true if the standard model is correct. If that model is correct, then the singularity didn't come from anywhere nor from nowhere because it didn't “come” and quantum fluctuations triggered the expansion of space.

“...the only one I've ever heard
was an eternal universe SO we start to take on God's nature to explain it all. ...”(my emphasis)

so you reveal here the real reason for why you insist that time couldn't begin which is not reason nor evidence but religious reasons.
I am not insisting that time MUST have had a beginning -as I said, I have no opinion on this. But religion is not a rational reason to believe anything about the physical world. Only flawless logic and evidence is.

Originally posted by humy
“...A causeless first step? ...”

that is the standard interpretation of the equations when simulating the singularity. I am not saying it is the correct one; it may or may not be and I have no personal opinion on this either way. But either way, to date, nobody has conclusively demonstrated any logical flaw nor evidence against that interpretation.

“...Ho ...[text shortened]... eason to believe anything about the physical world. Only flawless logic and evidence is.

Do you think the "singularity" could be the scientific way of referencing the God
of the Holy Bible in order to keep religious views out of science?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you think the "singularity" could be the scientific way of referencing the God
of the Holy Bible in order to keep religious views out of science?

“...Do you think the "singularity" could be the scientific way of REFERENCING the God
of the Holy Bible ...”(my emphasis)

what do you mean? Surely you are not saying the singularity IS God?
If so, this God was rather small and short-lived!

Originally posted by humy
“...Do you think the "singularity" could be the scientific way of REFERENCING the God
of the Holy Bible ...”(my emphasis)

what do you mean? Surely you are not saying the singularity IS God?
If so, this God was rather small and short-lived!

I am trying to bring you to your senses and show you that these scientific
theories about how the heavens and the Earth began is opinion and not science.
These stories are made up by atheists to counter the truth that God created
the heaves and the Earth as recorded in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am trying to bring you to your senses and show you that these scientific
theories about how the heavens and the Earth began is opinion and not science.
These stories are made up by atheists to counter the truth that God created
the heaves and the Earth as recorded in the Holy Bible.

There you go with your 'him vs them' bs again. Like atheists specifically developed certain scientific theories diabolically designed to directly challenge your god. Get off your high horse.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go with your 'him vs them' bs again. Like atheists specifically developed certain scientific theories diabolically designed to directly challenge your god. Get off your high horse.

I am just telling the truth as I see it. I can't help it if you don't like it. 😏

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
this is essentially the claims made about god.

Not really, God had a plan purpose in creating this universe which does
seem to have clock work like parts all the way through it on very large
and very small scales. God creates something, while the Big Bang has
some of the current stuff within the universe in some state then for
I guess no reason changes into a Big Bang.
Kelly

Originally posted by humy
“...A causeless first step? ...”

that is the standard interpretation of the equations when simulating the singularity. I am not saying it is the correct one; it may or may not be and I have no personal opinion on this either way. But either way, to date, nobody has conclusively demonstrated any logical flaw nor evidence against that interpretation.

“...Ho ...[text shortened]... eason to believe anything about the physical world. Only flawless logic and evidence is.

No flaw in a causeless first step, can you point to any other any where at
any time?
Kelly