If evolution is true where did it's basic building blocks come from?  where did the dust and/or particles that formed the "big mass" come from?  where did the air come from?  where did outer space come from?  where did the "gases" come from? is it not as dificult to believe that somthing "always existed" as it is to believe that somthing was created?
209934
I wonder the same thing. But I believe God created the world. I don't believe in evolution. It just doesn't make sense!
178639
That's the problem with the evolutionist's "theory" they say,"It was there and it exploded"No. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Have u heard of Intelligent design? Yea most of it is "religious" but see, the word "Creation" means the making from nothing" so u can easily say that God created the universe.It's easy to believe since no scientific evidence is needed.If the bang did come about, why do planets spin in opposite directions? Look in the conservation of angular momentum. I'm not trying to make u christian, but i'm glad u see a flaw in,these theories of the bang, no one was around at the time to know, so how could they be right? I'm glad u asked. My name is Tyler from Kearney, Ne E-mail me @ meatballofall@yahoo.com if u have more to ask or want to know more.
428505
Abu  Gabal are you another Muslim trying to stop free speech?\n\nIt is a perfectly ligitimate query.  If you have no idea who or why then say so dont question the questioner.\n\nThe Earth was created by the big bang.  Life was created after that by the gases and chemicals etc,   The creation of the solar systems and other solar systems will remain a mystery for the time being. \n\nMaybe an early life force similar to ours happened in a similar manner billions of billions of years ago and they now know how to preserve the soul/spirit.  We maybe be at the early stages of similar.
231766
First, you can safely ignore anybody who talks about "evolution" when talking about the Big Bang theory or the origin of the universe.  Such a person doesn't know the difference between biology and astrophysics, and is thus is not the best person to be asking about science.\n\nSecond, the "atoms and other stuff" didn't "cause" the Big Bang (as you say in your question).  They were created *by* it.\n\nThird, the Big Bang theory proposes that the light elements (hydrogen, helium, and perhaps some lithium) were created in *extremely* high-energy conditions present in the first moments of the universe after the big bang.  The heavier elements were created much later after gravity had coalesced masses of hydrogen into early stars.  The confirmation of these processes keeps mounting as we build bigger particle accelerators that simulate higher and higher energies in the laboratory.  \n\nBut I'm sure you're really asking what happened "before" the big bang to "cause" it.   Scientists barely have ways to even ask this question, as the very nature of "before" breaks down when we're talking about the beginning of time itself.\n\nIn other words, science does not claim to have all the answers ... but that is not to say it has no answers at all.  \n\n--- \nAnd as for Mike B. ... a shining example of the worst of both worlds ... gets his science from the Bible, but not a thing about how to treat people.  It's unlikely he's ever read the Bible, or if he did, he didn't understand a word of it.
347319
As humans evolved, many phenomenon on earth could not be explained, e.g. volcanoes, planets, etc., so we created gods. We still cannot explain what happened before the big bang, so it is possible that god created this space and time (and therefore,ultimately, us).
660368
Seriously kid, you need to start reading some real material by impartial authors rather than simply accepting religious dogma.\n\n\n>>>how can my soul come from an amoebe? \n\nAs soon as you present any evidence that the soul even exists science will give that due consideration. Since we have n more evidence for the existence of the soul than for the existence of leprechauns it simply isn’t an issue.\n\nAs far as anyone can tell there is no such thing as a soul.\n\n>>>>u cant go from barely anythin to something far better \n\nWell of course you can you silly girl. Have you never grown salt crystals from warm slaty water? Are you suggesting that a crystal isn’t far better than a random scattering of suspended ions?\n\nIn the real world order comes from chaotic systems all the time.\n\n>>>>and even if the big bang theory or somethin like that was\n>>> true...\n\nWhat exactly does the BB have to do with evolution? You appear be ingnorant, as are most fundamentalists, that these are two totally unconnected fields of science.\n\n>>>> what started evreything?\n\nRandom fluctuations within the quantum foam. That is what started everything.\nBut once again I ask, what exactly does the BB have to do with evolution?\n\n>>>humans havent thought of any theory that hasnt had to have a cause... a greater being\n\nAnd what caused the “greater being” my child? \n\nA “greater being” has to have a cause as well, so what caused that cause that caused the greater being? It’s turtles all the way down. At some point you need to admit that either something came form nothing, or there was no previous point and time itself came into existence.\n\nVague handwaving at some “greater being” doesn’t resolve the basic problem, all it does is violate Ockham’s razor and makes your position logically untenable.
318500
The accepted fact of energy conservation. Energy cannot be born or destroyed just reshaped. Everything has mass, mass is made of matter, matter is made of energy. And since energy cannot be destroyed or created in the first place there has to be a source of energy how else could energy come to exist. That energy is the building blocks of the cosmos. now how could energy become energy out of nothing if there was no source to create it? \n\nAlso one is the chances of creation coming to existence in the beggining there is absolutely nothing. Then more or less the chances of creation coming into existence would be one one hundrenth over infinity (since nothing existed) yet how come the universe existed if there was no powerful intelligent force to back it up?\n\nAnd about life. could life suddenly materialize out of non-life? as some evolutionists (Evolution dying science)propose so? If so how could non-life turn into life if there was no intelligent desing behind it?\n\n\nThe Theory of evolution is a lie. Creationism defeats evolution. Let me explain: Science has proven that DNA is the building blocks of life, and all scientists agree that DNA is material that stores information on the creation of an entity. micro-Evolution has been proven, but macro as in: "Massive modifications on a large scale?". Evolutionists argue that since everything evovled from bacteria you have to consider this fact. DNA is programmed to produce the same amount and quality of DNA they are born with. Then Why does the genetic code of the bacteria has significantly less genetic input as compared to that of the human's this proves the falcity of genetic evolution from bacteria to current day human. In all experiments with evolution. it is obeserved that creatures mutate only by shuffling or rearanging their genetic structure. think of it as Hyper Active Malnurished Albino chiwawa has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I then the mutation occurs and her oofsrping is a Hyper Active Malnurished Dehydrated Chiwawa, it has a genetic structure of A-G-H-I they are both the same creatures but only the latter "evolved" but never was it observed the a mutation had produced extra genetic code. so if a bacteria has only 10000 units in its genetic materia how come somthing as simple as a plant has x 10 more genetic materia if no intelligent being had put the extra materia there in the first place. since DNA is so complex even one modification to a molecule can tottally change the product ie: instead of a butterfly it's now a moth how could we have so much diverse and stalble life forms if everything evovled from an ameoba?  Religion was right, GOD does exist, science is only publicizing this now.
237769
If god existed he had to be made of something. What???\nAtoms, Energy, or maybe some thing beyond our imaginations.\nIF IT WAS ENERGY or ATOMS THEN WHY IS HE SO DIFF RENT FROM US.\nNOW IF he was MADE OF SOMETHING EVEN BEYOND OUR IMAGINATIONS then there has to be someone who created those things which make god up.\nAND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD JUST HAPPENED TO EXIST, BELIEVE THAT GOD IS FUNDAMENTAL, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU what is the problem with treating the universe the same way ???
61223
The creationist view is that God spoke, and things came into being.  This is surprizingly interesting, considering some unpublished stuff I've seen concerning possible connections between the quantum foam and actual particles: on the Orion Press website--a TREK fanfiction site, best found by a google search--there is a short story by someone that has obviously ALSO read this stuff: THE HITCHHIKER.\n\nConversly, the evolutionist view is that somehow, there was a major creative event that produced an unimaginably vast amount of matter/energy in what we call our universe.  This stuff cooled and expanded, allowing the four forces we know to condense out, then allowing matter to condense out, then over unimaginably huge stretches of time, the matter condensed into stars, galaxies and whatnot.  Heavier elements (beyond the lithium/boron level) were forged in the hearts of these early stars, and then spewed into space when these stars went nova; a second, and third, etc. generation of stars were born, lived and died, enriching the universe in stuff like carbon and iron and titanium and whatever, to the point that a world like ours could condense out of the mess...\n\nBoth views have their detractors and proponents.  The evolution group call the creationists mindless barbarians; the creationists call the evolutionist group  mechanistic determinists, and folks that extrapolate 'way out of the range that their observations will support...
585786
hows does knowing where the universe come from help you at all? the whole question is unrelevant... its exists, thats all you need to know... the probably with humanity is that we are so focused on where we came from, not where we're going...
18944
This is a question that neither science or religion can ever "prove."  In our human capacity, it is unlikely anyone will ever know the answer to this.  How can you even take a scientific approach to this?  You can speculate how the universe appears to be created based off measurements in the space, but you can always ask the question "but what about before that?"  \n\nUltimately it comes down to faith, and I don't necessarily mean in a God.  You have faith that the universe was started somehow.  Either God or some unexplainable cosmic phenomenon that we will never understand.  Or both!
647635
It resulted from the big bang. Time and space and matter and energy all started then. What existed before and why it occurred is for the philosophers to ponder. I'm content with the fact that we don't know everything right now. We might someday though.
83192
They believe that matter and energy were created during the Big Bang, however, that raises for a lot more questions, the most obvious one being:\n\nHow can matter and energy be created?
397353
This question arises again and again, and I personally can see why it is in the physics forum, as it draws the analogy to particles, atoms and the origin of the universe. To draw another connecting thread to physics, the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe is challenged by the Steady-State theory, that posits that there was no "first event" and the universe exists in a steady state for all time. There is a lot of physical evidence against the steady state, but that also assumes that the universe is homogeneous throughout, and this particular aspect cannot be proven with our limited powers of observation. The evidence points to a first event, but the possibility is still open that this is but a local illusory phenomenon based on the apparent but not actual homogeneity of space in our local area. \n\nPersonally I think the problem of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" is insoluble and relies on an infinite regression of time as we understand it currently. I am waiting for the theory that does away with time altogether, as I think it will simplify many things. \n\nThe question you ask about who created the first something out of nothing always begs the question, "who created the creator?" And this is what I mean by the endless regression of time and "what came first?" I think it must be a sort of logical loop created by our understanding of the concept of time and our belief in the finite nature of the universe. Perhaps someone living in a different area of space, where everything is in flux and homogeneity is a fool's dream would have very different cosmological and philosophical theories.\n\nAddendum: to address the answerer a few below me who treats the search for God as a scientific problem, I think your metaphor is a little misplaced, as it posits a correlation to biology and the assumption that God is a species, rather than a singularity, which is what most people would start with as a first assumption. When one tries to detect evidence for a phenomenon that is not directly observable, one looks at effects on observable objects and beings that can be quantified, such as the supporting evidence for an expanding universe determined by red-shifted galaxies and the like. It would be interesting to see the search for God set up as a problem in science, but I think it should, if it were to be approached from a monotheistic perspective, be treated in terms of the singularity, unless you wish to determine whether the Greek and Roman Gods existed or if you wish to prove the existence of many gods, rather than just one. A good twist, though!
559190
The origin of the first life form is actually indeed unclear.  What makes this so difficult is not that one cannot envision molecules that replicate themselves by having certain enzymatic activities.  Rather, if all recent life forms go back to one ancestral species, how did all those parts shared by recent species come together?   (For example, cell membranes, organalles, the nucleic acids etc.)\n\nNow, you are absolutely right that there is an assumed parent species, an ancestor to all other species on the planet.  But science does not show at all that life cannot derive from non-life.  Quite on the contrary, science would suggest, since all the individual parts of which living cells are composed are by themselves not alive, life must emerge from the higher-level organization.  The idea is the following: the properties of the parts of a system do not predict the properties of the whole.  Take water, which is composed of two gases.  Nothing in the properties of either gas suggests or makes predictable that H20 is a translucent liquid with a density anomaly.  The same holds true for biological systems.  Life seems to emerge at one point of complexity as a property of the union of non-living parts in complex systems such as cells.  How that happens is unclear.\n\nNow, I am not familiar with the theory you mention.  As a biologist who has focused much of his work time on evolution, I cannot say that this is a commonly held opinion.  But your question is a very good one:  If that indeed were the case, don't we just push the point of origin one level backwards?  Some scientists opt for the pansperm theory, according to which life came from out of space.  Not to wory, I am not talking UFO's etc.  Rather, amino acids and nucleic acids have been found in space.  The idea comes in two major flavors, namely one, that life originated on earth from these parts that were brought to the surface of the planet by means of meteors and then came together to form life.  The other flavor is that this happened on another planet and that the living cells were transported by meteroites to earth, which likewise would push the problem of the origin of life backwards, just as the "other dimension idea" (which to me seem rather strange and unscientific).
425032
I don't say that evolution does not exist, I say that however life came to be, God put it there. In other words, if there is evolution, God started it. Maybe there was a Big Bang, but God started it. That's all.
597194
I'm not sure I understand your question.\nDo you mean that, "If "bananas", a never-before seen or imagined item suddenly appeared out of thin air, then Athiests would believe that these bananas came from monkeys"?\n\nIf so, then I would answer by saying that very rarely (if ever) do new objects suddenly appear from no source. (This does happen on a sub-atomic level, but only to certain particles and certainly not to "bananas") \n\nIf, someday something were to materialize from nowhere, it would be illogical to assume that the entire Athiest community would throw up their hands and declare, "The monkeys did it!" More reasonably, they would study the "bananas" and if after many trials, the "bananas" were not identified to have come from anywhere, they would probably classify "bananas" as a new type of "super-material" and leave it for future generations to ponder.\n\nIn regards to your question about proving the non-existance of such "bananas", that would be easy. All you have to do is show that "bananas" appeared recently. Then you could easily say that because no "bananas" existed before the date they first appeared, they must not have existed then. In other words, the current existence of the "bananas" is proof that they didn't exist then.\n\nIf I misunderstood your question I am sorry, please disregard my answer.