no
2007-08-03 16:59:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by vorenhutz 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why do these people always refer to "evolutionist" or "atheist?" They should be plural, shouldn't they?
To answer your question. First, evolution and the big bang are two different theories. Second, much MUCH more is known about evolution than the big bang. Questions about the limits of the Universe, (ie. origins, end, extremities, smallest things, etc.) are difficult if not impossible for us to fathom. When you think about it,, this is not unexpected.
We are utterly attuned to a Universe of causalities. The idea of something happening without a cause is incongruous with our experience. But look at it this way. The universe either had a beginning or it is eternal. It is counter-intuitive to consider a Universe with a beginning because we can't imagine it being acausal. It is just as difficult to imagine an eternal Universe. Both seem equally implausible. And yet one thing we know for sure: the Universe does exist.
The question of God is even more difficult to consider. Even if God existed, we still have that problem mentioned above.
2007-08-03 17:10:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Brant 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution and the big bang are 2 completely separate theories. It's possible to agree with one and not the other
I have no idea how the universe came into being. I put this down to me (and the human race) just not being smart enough to figure it out yet. After all we're little more than overly smart animals
If you believe there had to be a 1st thing then clearly you must believe there was something to start your god. What was that?
You do understand that you can't change the rules of your argument right?
2007-08-03 21:48:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
*drink*
Not until you explain how God came to be. Never mind that, first show us that God is more than a figment of someone imagination. (The reason i ASSume that you're a theist is implied by your question.)
We may not have the answer to your question, but at least we don't postulate an answer ("goddidit") by fiat.
And when we do seek such answers, we know to look up *science* sources, and not troll a bunch of opinionated rabble in R&S. For example, we'd learn that 1) there's no such thing as an evolutionist, and 2) evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe. "...[E]volution, the big bang, whatever you believe" is a display of astounding ignorance. (If you learned about the "6 types of evolution," then you're getting your info from ignoramuses. Really.)
2007-08-03 17:15:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by RickySTT, EAC 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think I see where you are going. Before I answer, can you tell me how your God came to be?
Big bang: our 4-dimensional space-time is probably just a 4D membrane embedded in a higher dimensional space. If our membrane collided with another 4D membrane it could have released a tremendous amount of energy in the form of matter and antimatter, with perhaps preponderance of matter in our 4D membrane, and a preponerance of anti-matter in the other.
First life on earth: most likely the first 'life' was just a self-replicating molecule, without even the benefit of a cell wall to protect it. This molecule was the precursor to DNA/RNA, and probably first formed 4 billion years ago. There was probably about 1 billion years of evolution, just for this molecule to first code for proteins that clustered around it and protected it some from the environment, and later to become a fully functioning cell wall. 1 billion years is so mind bogglingly long than even a tremendously slow rate of evolution might have made this possible.
Both of these answers may be completely wrong. But the point is they are plausible. Meanwhile, if you are making an argument from incredulity, you get nowhere. You may not be able to comprehend how these things could have happened naturally, but that it no way proves that they couldn't. Saying "we don't know, so therefore a god must have done it" is a pure logical fallacy.
2007-08-03 17:07:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jim L 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
No one can answer this question. Even if you assume the existence of god to create all the matter in the universe you still run into the same problem of what created god and what created the thing that created god and so on and so on....
Also evolution and the big bang are two COMPLETELY separate theories. They have nothing to do with one another.
2007-08-03 16:59:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Herschel Krustofski 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
You are asking about initial Creation, so why are you addressing your question to "evolutionists" (whatever that is)? Biological evolution didn't begin until billions of years after the initial Creation. So why would you expect someone knowledgeable about the natural process of biological evolution to know anything about where the first matter came from?? That question, while interesting in its own right, is completely irrelevant to the study of evolution.
2007-08-03 16:57:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by PaulCyp 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Ignoring the fact that you are addressing the wrong people we do not know all the answers. But I would rather not know these answers than believe in false ones.
2007-08-03 17:05:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Abiogenesis. different topic. Science doesn't use a cover all answer for everything like 'goddidit'
2007-08-03 16:59:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
can you explain how you believe everything was *created*?
everyone is so hung up on how everything came to be. who really cares? does it matter? in the end, no, it doesn't.
2007-08-03 18:04:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by superwow_rl 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
If we are so complicated that a god had to create us, then isn't a god existing first that much more illogical??? c'mon... Wake up!
2007-08-03 17:05:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋