Sorry just another stupid creationist asking a stupid question. But I don't care this has really got me stumped, but I'm sure there is an evolutionist answer for it, it's just they I haven't heard it yet. Now traditionally with the big bang theory 2 atoms collided and exploded into a mass of creation, or something along those lines (or am I already showing my ignorance?) I'm just wondering where those atoms came from? Who made them exist? And who made the space for them to exist in? Because atoms exist don't they? Nothing makes nothing, only something makes something, so where did the something come from? I don't understand evolutionary theory when it comes to the big bang, so it's probably not a good start for me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! lol Thanks CyA's
You are raising a straw man, a typical creationist ploy. Evolution has <i>nothing</i> to do with the origin of the universe. Evolution is a branch of biology. Theories regarding the origin of universe are in the realm of cosmology. Evolution theory answers the question "how has life become so diverse?" Evolution theory looks for and has found evidence of life changing. Evolution theory looks for and has found mechanisms that explain how life does change. Evolution doesn't even answer the question "how did life begin?", let alone, "how did the universe begin?" An evolutionist could not answer your question. Big bang theory answers the question "how has the universe changed?" Big bang theory looks for and has found evidence of the universe expanding from the incredibly small to its present vastness (actually, finding the evidence preceded the theory). Big bang theory looks for and has found mechanisms that explain why the universe behaves the way it does. Conventional big bang theory cares about what happened after the big bang; does not answer the question "what caused the big bang in the first place?" A big bang theorist could not answer your question. By the way, your straw man of two atoms colliding is just that -- a straw man. Science and religion do not have to be in conflict. Science does not answer everything. There are a lot of scientists who see no conflict between their religious beliefs and scientific understanding.
Not a truer word hath been spoken in your post. "Evolutionist"? Learn to spell, please. *BUZZ* WRONG! The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. Now I shall switch my attention entirey off of evolution and focus on the Big Bang theory, since you seem to be thinking about that and not evolution. We don't know. Why must it be a who? You're thinking within the context of our universe's laws of physics. Those laws, which include that matter cannot spontaneously generate, came to be a few milliseconds or so after the Big Bang, according to the theory. Therefore it's entirely possible that before that matter could come out of nowhere. I'm sorry to say, but that's glaringly obvious. You're welcome. Sorry if I sounded like a jerk. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
" Originally Posted by answers Sorry just another stupid creationist asking a stupid question. ” Not a truer word hath been spoken in your post." - Well now aren't you just a lovely person. Instead of writting all that you could have simply said, don't have the faintist idea but evolution ignores the origin and so does the big bang theory. Science doesn't answer the question? Well there you go, and I'm supposed to be stupid for asking something that science can't even answer? That's a bit illogical. Anyway there is no point discussing this anymore as you seem to just want to call people stupid, I guess I could say no I'm not you are, and then you can write a witty remark back, then I can write something derogatory back to you and we could have a nice big argument, but I don't see the point sorry.
Your original post was blaringly inaccurate and begged us to call you names. You have ignored the posts by those who did not call you names. Does the fact that one poster did call you a name mean that you won the "debate" (in your mind)? Science will try to answer such questions. Science has pushed the beginning of the universe back to the tiniest fraction of a second after the big bang. Some scientists are indeed trying to look at what happened before the big bang. One difference between science and religion is that science is constantly pushing the envelope. Answering one question in science inevitably leads to another question. Religion cannot push the envelope; some things have to be taken with faith in religion. Suppose it became evident to science that some god did indeed create the universe. Science would then ask "well where did this god come from?" Religion would not ask such a question; God is the final answer.
Absolutely no religious based philosophy and absolutely no scientific theory can answer the question of what caused the universe to happen. But, the thing is that whatever the cause, whether we'll ever know or not, is something we will be able to rationalise through scientific means and not through blind faith based on some god or creator, because there will always be the follow up question of what created the creator? Therefore, the simplest way to answer your question at this juncture is to say that the universe is self perpetuating, self governing and self made and anything else is mere man-made conjecture based on anthropomorphological thinking.
There is an implication in your words that somehow by ignoring the origin the theories of evolution and of the Big Bang have somehow failed. Perhaps I am misreading you, but that's how it is coming across. Let's try an analogy. Have you ever noticed how Deuteronomy ignores the appropriate time to wait at certain depths during a scuba diving ascent? Have you ever noticed how the Luke's Gospel ignores recipes for Kashmiri curries? Have you ever noticed how the Book of Jonah ignores the ecology of the Grampian Mountains? Now I don't criticise the Bible for all these obvious failings, because it clearly is not the function of the Bible to address these issues. Why then do you implicitly criticise two well established theories for their failure to address issues that are outside their scope? I would challenge anyone who called you stupid. You have not yet demonstrated that. You are, however, ignorant. Stupidity cannot be corrected, ignorance can. If you will ponder on what has been written here, ignoring the emotion, you may be able to remove some of your ignorance. Good luck with that.
Hah! You’re attempting to shift the goal posts, a typical ploy of scientific creationists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You originally asked how evolution explains the Big bang, not how science in general explains it. So, in response to your willfull ignorance it was correctly pointed out to you that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe, and that any changes to Big Bang theories do nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. As a result, to try and deflect attention away from your exposed strawman, you’re trying to somehow conclude that "science" cannot explain it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Science most definitely does have theories and data concerning the Big Bang in the form of the field of cosmology. So, my willfully ignorant creationist friend, you are the only source of illogicality in this thread. :bugeye:
It is a great thing for a theist to begin questioning his faith and begin looking for real answers to hard questions. I commend you for doing so, kudos! And although you have a long journey ahead of you in finding and understanding those answers, it gives me great joy to know you're taking those first steps. The best thing you can do is keep asking, the worst is to stop. As O has said, stupidity cannot be corrected, and it appears that by asking those questions, you are not stupid.
Understanding, not beliefs, rule my worldview. If it didn't, I might agree with you. Matergy might be eternal, but matter and energy are not.
I think (Q) is pointing out that matter can be converted to energy and vice versa. Therefore neither are intrinsically eternal. However, at present we know no way of destroying one or the other, only of converting them.
