Creation vs Evolution

[Rodion Romanovich]

You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.

Why?

I'm not saying there was something before, but I'm saying that we shouldn't say there wasn't something before without proof. As it looks to me, it seems more plausible that there was something before. But that doesn't mean there was necessarily something before. Sometimes "I don't know about that part" is the correct answer in a theory.

I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.

Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".

To say there wasn't anything before the big bang is a form of circular proof. It's very similar to methods used by church fanatics to silence all other opinions or theories in historical times. The theory of the big bang first tries to explain observations made, but doesn't apply Occam's razor and therefore also adds uneeded claims not used in my own simplified theory, for example the claim that time-space or energy-matter didn't exist before the big bang. That theory is not founded in observations but in the lack of usage of Occam's razor when trying to explain the observations - have you or anyone else found an argument based on an observation that would counter-prove the simplified theory I proposed but would support the other big bang theory?