At 07:06 AM 12/5/2007, you wrote: >[Ham] >There would have had to be matter in some form (energy and/or gas, for >example) for such a cosmic eruption; so it is wrong to say that the Big Bang >marked "the beginning" of existence. Energy, matter, things do not bring >themselves into existence. Science doesn't have an answer to what led to >the Big Bang, but you're not likely to find a physical scientist disputing >the fact that something did. > >[Krimel] >You are rapidly dispelling what few doubts I had left that you haven't the >faintest clue what you are talking about. Even a causal reading of a Wiki >article should suffice to clear up some of your misconceptions. But I think >you make a serious misjudgment if you think others here are so profoundly >ignorant. According to the theory there was no matter, energy or gas before >the Big Bang. There was no "before" before the Big Bang. The Big Bang refers >to the instant at which time, matter and space, all of it, came into >existence. Physicists can specify with a high degree of precision everything >that has happened since the smallest possible instant of time after the Big >Bang. They can go no farther because there is no place to go. There was >nothing before it.
Krimel, You bet! I've read the arguments and counterarguments in Wikipedia several times. Ham wants us to adopt his assumptions. I feel no compelling reason to do so. Marsha Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
