Find me a proponent of the big bang theory who claims that.
THEN we can talk.


The ones you posted are all derivatives of the same flaw.
Take the "vacuum" one you quoted just now.
The big bang theory DOES NOT SAY that vacuum has density.
It's all derived from the same flaw in pretending the big bang theory says something it doesn't.

Go to the link I posted, then get back.
There is no use in trying to argue Calculus with somebody who thinks 1+1=3.

Im not saying it contradicts the bible, Im saying it doesnt hold water from a scientific view. Please read the second part of the article.

Big Bang Theory



"Find me a proponent of the big bang theory who claims that.
THEN we can talk."




Are you ready to "talk" now?

No. They don't.
They are both scientific theories, but neither has any reliance upon the other.

Evolution talks about the DEVELOPMENT of life. It doesn't pretend to speak about how the earth was created, or even how life itself was created.

The Big Bang talks about the UNIVERSE.

This is inane.
It would be akin to me telling you what YOU believe. Insisting that you must believe that the creation of Man is linked to David sleeping with one of his many wives....


I'm always amused by people who insist I reply to their statements, but then they utterly fail to respond to mine.

Like I said, if you can't show a minimal capability to comprehend the REAL theory on the Big Bang, then this whole thing is pointless.

It would be like arguing with you that birds can fly, only to find that you claim they can't because you are pointing to a dog.
And you refuse to acknowledge what I am talking about when I talk about a BIRD flying.

A better question is "Are you ready to LISTEN now?"

From your article:

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind).

FINITE MATTER...
Does that sound like they are talking about "nothing"? Or a "vacuum"????

Please. TRY to comprehend.
YOU gave this link.

So then you missed this part of it? (The very first paragragh of the article)



Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was NOTHING; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


So clearly you can see the Big Bang is based on the assumption that at one time there was Nothing. I cant wait to see what rediculas statment you post next. God forgive me.

It's talking about "nothing" in OTHER PARTS of the space that would become our "universe". NOT the "singularity" itself which CAUSED the universe, which WAS something.

You'll note that it is talking about the UNIVERSE when it discusses "nothing" in the previous sentence, which is completely consistent with what I am saying. One minute, there was "nothing" where the universe was, and then there was the universe.
It is talking about the UNIVERSE and not the SINGULARITY from which the universe expanded from. Note the difference!

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density.

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big Bang Theory, currently accepted explanation of the beginning of the universe. The big bang theory proposes that the universe was once extremely compact, dense, and hot. Some original event, a cosmic explosion called the big bang, occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, and the universe has since been expanding and cooling.

Big Bang Theory - MSN Encarta

A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature.

big bang theory: Definition and Much More from Answers.com

Let’s first look at what the Big Bang theory really states: “Our universe began in a hot dense state which began, and still is expanding. In this initial event, all the matter in our universe was created with approximately 80% hydrogen and 20% helium.”

Angry Astronomer: The Big Bang – Common Misconceptions


Over and over and over again, it's the same thing.
Only by MISINTERPRETING what they meant by "nothing" can you make such a futile argument. The SINGULARITY was not nothing, as the LATER STATEMENTS explain.

HOW do you reconcile your quoted statement with the statement I quoted????
How do you explain the fact that you interpret YOUR sentence as saying there was absolutely nothing, with MY sentence (also in YOUR link) which explicitly says that the singularity DID CONTAIN MATTER...

I am saying that the two theories are independent.

If the Big Bang theory is false, that doesn't mean evolution is false.
If evolution is false, that doesn't mean the Big Bang theory is false.

And for the record, the "something to bring to the table" comment is hilarious.
This is all one series of gross strawman arguments. One after the other.
And YOU are demanding that I disprove your strawmans, which I hilarious.

Can you show me WHY disproving the big bang would disprove evolution, or vice versa???
Because quite frankly, it is YOU who has failed to show HOW they are related in the first place...


I think we are coming to the root of the problem. An incapability to separate YOUR thinking with the methodologies of science.

The theory of evolution DOES NOT SAY WHERE the water, dirt, and heat supposedly came from. It just speaks to the DEVELOPMENT of life.
In fact, evolution doesn't even speak to the CREATION of life. It speaks to how it DEVELOPED.
Like explaining how John changed from age 5 to age 35, but not speaking about how John came into being in the first place. That's a common problem of understanding with people who are against STRAWMAN "evolution".

Over and over again, you demonstrate that your difficulty with science is not based on reasoning, but rather your incapability to comprehend what it ACTUALLY says.


Wrong, and wrong.
The Big Bang theory DOES NOT talk about the creation of life.
Evolution doesn't even do that.

Your line of thinking is like saying "A sperm and an egg joined together to form a baby, which would become John. When John was 25, he killed a man. Ergo, the forming of the sperm and egg must be related to killing."


The point of an ANALOGY obviously goes over your head.
I was talking about your beliefs from the position of ME telling YOU what you must believe.
Just like you are presuming to tell ME what science states...

"Over and over and over again, it's the same thing.
Only by MISINTERPRETING what they meant by "nothing" can you make such a futile argument. The SINGULARITY was not nothing, as the LATER STATEMENTS explain.
HOW do you reconcile your quoted statement with the statement I quoted????"


How could I possibly Misinterprete the meaning of the word NOTHING. Your sources clearly avoid the fact that that theory is based on the assumption that at one time there was nothing. But lets for one second say your right. Are we seriously to believe that density just came to be? Were the materials that made the big bang eternal?