The Big Bang Theory III

I wrote about the Big Bang Theory here and here and this is a continuation of it.

This is an illustration of exactly why the Big Bang Theory doesn't explain what people are really wanting to know about origins.

Someone walks into a computer room and plugs a disk that was sitting on the desk into the computer. He looks at the contents.

"Hey where is this disk from?"

"I found it in the drawer over there. It was pretty much unreadable."

"No who made it?"

"I did. I found it in the drawer and found that the disk was no longer readable by the computer so I reformatted it and started using it. I have no idea what was on it before."

"No who manufactured it? I wouldn't mind getting a few disks and I like it."

"I have no idea."

"Well you're a lot of help."

Now read the description of the Big Bang theory from the second link. When they say they don't know what came before the explosion, are they really answering what you want to know? They certainly aren't answering what I want to know.

In order to explain the beginnings of the universe, you have to start from nothing or a vacuum because if you're going to explain the beginnings of the universe you have to explain the beginnings of everything in the universe: chemicals, gases, ect. You cannot explain the beginnings of the universe by using something that exists in the universe. Science cannot do that so it cannot come up with a real theory that explains the origins of the universe.

Instead of admitting as much, they come up with a theory that "reformats" the universe that was already there and claims it explains the origins of the universe. But when you read their description you see that they do admit there was something there before but they cannot describe it because they have no way of knowing what was there before. Similar to a disk that has been reformatted. Unless you have a special tool that recovers lost disk fragments.