Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[Sonofason]

I am not a geologist, Sonofason.

I have no reason to lie to you. I don't know you, I really don't care, because I know that you don't believe in anything I have to say, so I would recommend you read any books on geology of India, the Himalayas or Mount Everest, will tell you the history of geology in that region, including that of the tectonic plates.

My suggestion is to read any geological surveys, or scientific expedition to Everest, and avoid creationist's websites.

It has been years I've touched books on geology, and those books I do have, related to what I was studying in civil engineering, which don't require knowledge on tectonic plates. So I really can't recommend the books that I do have on geology.

But from what I understand and remember about the Australian tectonic (which include New Zealand and New Guinea, is moving at a rate of 5 cm (or more) a year.

From memory, Indian and Australia used to be one plate, until it split. It was joined in what is now south-eastern shore of India, and Western Australia coastline. I don't remember when it split, so I would have to look it up. About 70 million years ago, the Indian plate began moving northward, towards the Eurasian tectonic plate, and collided around 40 million years ago or less. I think it was moving at the rate of 14-16 cm per year, before actually contacting with the Eurasian plate, but the rate have dropped.

If you study geology at all, you would and should know, that two possible things could happen when two land masses (beside earthquakes):

1. Where it collide and join, it could drop eventually into mantle layer.
2. Or it could the land lift or fold upward, as it is the case with the Himalayas.

When the plates met (about 40 million years ago), the 2nd point, above, occurred, which caused the once seabed rose as it fold upward, and the Indian plate continue to push northward into what is now Hindu Kush and Tibet plateau, although it slow down somewhat to about less than 4 cm per year (could be less), and yet the plate continue to push the Himalayas northward, about 6 cm, and upward from about 5 mm per year.

Beside this, Genesis 7 indicated that the Ark landed on Mount Ararat, which is considerable lower than Everest by 3711 metres (or 12175 feet). If the rate of rise is consistent of 6 mm, then about 4300 years ago (rough estimate of the supposed biblical Flood), then Everest would have 28810 cm (288.1 m) lower than it is today. In another word, today Everest is 8848 me (29,029 ft; this is the current elevation accepted by both Nepal and China), but in 2300 BCE it would be 8560 m (or 28,084 ft) high.

And as to the marine life found on the limestone. That's because what was underwater of the ocean, was lift and folded upward. Those signs (fossils) of marine life is about 400 million years old, predated any human activity in this reason. It couldn't be caused by Noah's flood, because the Homo sapiens have only been around 200,000 years ago.

Another evidence(s) for Himalayas continually being push upward is the number of earthquakes, occurring Nepal, Tibet and northern India.

Do you think these seismic activities occurred for no reason?

It really doesn't take a genius to learn this.

I am not suggesting that folding has not occurred in the region of the Himalayas. I am suggesting it is not a result of India smashing into the southern coast of Asia. That did not happen. Check out the videos below.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, your question was and I quote: "Where did you get this from....please provide a citation to the theory that a singularity containing all the stuff of the universe existed prior to the big bang?" I did provide the quotation. You are just trying to avoid looking like an idiot for asking such an elementary question.

If you think I was not aware of the fact that big bang theory sequence was singularity and then expansion....then I despair for my wasted time on you... I misinterpreted your post where I asked for a citation as saying the singularity....you said "Of course the universe hasn't existed forever. But what the universe consists of existed in the singularity it was just compressed..". Do you not see that the statement that the "what the universe consists of existed in a singularity, it was just compressed." can mean that you are implying that the singularity did not just pop up out of timelessness one day...but was just sitting in the timeless before it became active?

The point I have persistently tried to get true believers to face is why did the singularity just pop into existence form nowhere one day like a :let there be light" miracle...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

We both and the whole forum now knows how little you know about the subject so I suggest that you spend some time off the forum learning about it.

I do not know that, what I do know is that you do not speak for the whole forum and to claim so means a character weakness in the area of honesty and integrity....I am disappointed in you ArtieE.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay, thanks Ben for clearing that up for me. Can you please define "essence of existence" for me. Are we talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Yes....the principle of the first law of thermodynamics....the universe is infinite and eternal....acts like a closed system....the underlying essence of all that is is the one essence. The energy frequency continuum is from the infinitely large to the infinitesimal wavelengths....the cosmic dance is eternal..

 

[ArtieE]

Do you not see that the statement that the "what the universe consists of existed in a singularity, it was just compressed." can mean that you are implying that the singularity did not just pop up out of timelessness one day...but was just sitting in the timeless before it became active?

I imply nothing. The Big Bang theory says nothing about why the singularity was there in the first place.

The point I have persistently tried to get true believers to face is why did the singularity just pop into existence form nowhere one day like a :let there be light" miracle...

True believers in what? Creation?

 

[ArtieE]

I do not know that, what I do know is that you do not speak for the whole forum and to claim so means a character weakness in the area of honesty and integrity....I am disappointed in you ArtieE.

Everybody can see that I answered your original question in post number 1426 in post 1430 and then in post number 1433 you come up with a different question. But this leads nowhere so let's stop this particular exchange here.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes....the principle of the first law of thermodynamics....the universe is infinite and eternal....acts like a closed system....the underlying essence of all that is is the one essence. The energy frequency continuum is from the infinitely large to the infinitesimal wavelengths....the cosmic dance is eternal..

I will admit that your view of the universe certainly supports a pantheistic perspective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I imply nothing. The Big Bang theory says nothing about why the singularity was there in the first place.

True believers in what? Creation?

Haha,,,,of course it doesn't say so explicitly....that's the elephant in the room....if they say it was there always...it implies an eternal universe....if they say it just popped up from the timelessness....it implies a miraculous something from nothing....either way it shows big bang theory is flawed.. By saying they do not know...they hope that no one will point out that it does not matter if they do not know....it has to be one or the other....an eternal universe or a miraculous something for nothing one. Which one do you think the more credible?

No.....true believers in the miraculous singularity arising from nothing!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Everybody can see that I answered your original question in post number 1426 in post 1430 and then in post number 1433 you come up with a different question. But this leads nowhere so let's stop this particular exchange here.

Fine....if you think so...I offered to cease some time back but you chose to go on with it....I would though like an answer to my question on my post above...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not suggesting that folding has not occurred in the region of the Himalayas. I am suggesting it is not a result of India smashing into the southern coast of Asia. That did not happen. Check out the videos below.

Wow..thanks for that Sonofason....that second video is pretty convincing.... I've intuitively always understood the world's surface was expanding...but not at the rate and timing the data reveals. There definitely is a conspiracy in science to dumb down the people...just like the big bang theory....or it could be just the lack of a developed intuitive faculty in most scientists...and the masses.. On second thought...it is both....there is deception...but the deceived lack intuition to know they are deceived...and the whole world was deceived by the beast... (except those..)

 

[Sonofason]

Wow..thanks for that Sonofason....that second video is pretty convincing.... I've intuitively always understood the world's surface was expanding...but not at the rate and timing the data reveals. There definitely is a conspiracy in science to dumb down the people...just like the big bang theory....or it could be just the lack of a developed intuitive faculty in most scientists...and the masses.. On second thought...it is both....there is deception...but the deceived lack intuition to know they are deceived...and the whole world was deceived by the beast... (except those..)

Indeed, I was amazed and quite pleased when I discovered this. I even have a theory as to why the earth might be growing, which I'm surprised I don't see more information on. E=mc2 All that sunlight...all that energy from the sun being absorbed by the earth, and being converted into mass. As the earth increases in size, more sunlight strikes the earths surface, thus the speed of growth of the earth increases over time.

 

[idav]

No.....true believers in the miraculous singularity arising from nothing!

This strawman you keep repeating. Which poster said the big bang came from nothing other than you?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Indeed, I was amazed and quite pleased when I discovered this. I even have a theory as to why the earth might be growing, which I'm surprised I don't see more information on. E=mc2 All that sunlight...all that energy from the sun being absorbed by the earth, and being converted into mass. As the earth increases in size, more sunlight strikes the earths surface, thus the speed of growth of the earth increases over time.

Well that's an interesting insight.....also possible that some heat is building up deep inside the earth causing it to expand and fracturing the outer along the fault lines and allowing the magma to flow out to fill the expanded surface...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This strawman you keep repeating. Which poster said the big bang came from nothing other than you?

So tell me.....which do you believe...the singularity was there all along as a part of an eternal universe or a singularity popped into existence from nothing and thus was the beginning of the universe?

 

[idav]

So tell me.....which do you believe...the singularity was there all along as a part of an eternal universe or a singularity popped into existence from nothing and thus was the beginning of the universe?

IDK, neither are logical. Eternal can't be because infinite in the past cannot reach now. What do we do just time travel to our reality in this eternal now?

 

[idav]

So tell me.....which do you believe...the singularity was there all along as a part of an eternal universe or a singularity popped into existence from nothing and thus was the beginning of the universe?

Also your misinterpreting Hawkings lecture just like you were last time we debated it.

Pay close attention to this part in the end. He is saying that time is finite but boundless with no edge, almost like he is making it finite and infinite at the same time.

This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

IDK, neither are logical. Eternal can't be because infinite in the past cannot reach now. What do we do just time travel to our reality in this eternal now?

There is no past or future except as a conceptualization.....the eternal now is all there is, was, and will be!

If you think both possibilities for the big bang theory are illogical....what do you think the theory explains about when and where the singularity came into existence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Also your misinterpreting Hawkings lecture just like you were last time we debated it.

Pay close attention to this part in the end. He is saying that time is finite but boundless with no edge, almost like he is making it finite and infinite at the same time.

You totally ignore my question....I am asking you...not Hawking..

 

[idav]

You totally ignore my question....I am asking you...not Hawking..

I hadn't seen your question sorry.

 

[idav]

If you think both possibilities for the big bang theory are illogical....what do you think the theory explains about when and where the singularity came into existence?

Where, everywhere the universe currently exists because it expanded, there is no center. When 14 some billion years ago, I think time is real but wasn't until expansion started. I guess time would only be real to us not god.