How do evolutionists propose that all the universe's matter came to be?
482562
The theory of evolution (assuming you are lumping this in with the physics of the creation of matter) has the same initiation problem as the Religious one.\n\nWhere did the first matter come from?\nWhere did God come from?\n\nBoth 'sides' will say there has simply been [insert your object here]\n\nPeace out
997052
The theory evolved based on the facts that have been observed in the universe. The theory may not be correct or accurate but it does fit the facts and it is the only explanation anyone has been able to give to fit the facts.  \n\nIf you have a better one let's hear it.
37036
Well I used to think about that a lot. Well, let me be honest here, before you go through my whole mumblings; I'm tying to prove that after reaching a point in a string of reasoning, we as being human beings cannot continue...\n\nOK, let's see. \nLet's start with a definition of matter and time. I'll assume that we agree that you and me and everything that exists around us, our universe, or the whole world is made of matter. (I define matter as something which is comprised by atoms). Matter is subject to change, and in fact transformation is a property of matter. Now what’s the definition of change? The word “change” itself implies the existence of “time”. When we say that X (X being anything material, a table or a human) has changed from A to B, we imply that there was a time point T0 in which X was in state A, and another time point T1 in which X has changed into state B. So as we can see, MATTER and TIME are much interleaved abstracts. \n\nWhat about SPACE?  Space is where matter can exist. How about ENERGY? Energy is the ability to change the state of matters. What about us humans? We live in this world, we are made of matter and exist in space and all the rules of energy apply to us. We are part of this world anyway!\n\nConclusion 1: MATTER, TIME, SPACE and ENERGY are all interleaved concepts that apply, in fact govern our world. \n\nNow another branch of reasoning: It is obvious to a logical mind that every thing which exists should have a cause, a creator. There cannot exist something material that had no creator. So if you start from anything material, let’s say your computer, and go back in the chain of creators. You can go back to through this chain, but you have to stop somewhere or else your reasoning will be caught in an infinite loop. There has to be a stop somewhere. Let’s call this entity as G.\nNow, this creator G cannot be made of matter, because everything which is made of matter should have a creator. So, it’s logical that the first creator should NOT be made of matter. As such, none of the other terms of TIME, ENERGY and SPACE govern it or its actions. This creator G is what we call the God. \n\nConclusion 2: God is not bound by MATTER, TIME, SPACE and ENERGY. \n\nSo, now by using the first two conclusions, I can reason that your question is irrelevant in some way. MATTER, TIME, SPACE and ENERGY are all the foundations of our universe, and God created them. He is out of this bound. \n\nTo clear things up, let's think about the “big bang” theory. In a nutshell, it states that at first, TIME, ENERGY, MATTER and SPACE were unite, squashed together in a tiny tiny dot. Now they still don't know what was the condition of this pile of matter and energy and time at the very first moment of time (they believe it exploded in a BIG way), but scientists have good answers for what happened after about 1e-43 seconds (i.e. 0.0000.......001 seconds, the number of zeros being 42). From then, it's known. It’s also proven that the space HAS boundaries. See the reference to know more about it. \n\nBut what was there BEFORE the big bang?! We just know two things about it. First, as I reasoned above, God SHOULD have existed before, to create that small, condensed dot of TIME, ENERGY, MATTER and SPACE. Second, I (and for this matter nobody) cannot imagine what it was like before, because we are all part of this world, material. We cannot even imagine it; we are SO made of matter and time that we cannot think outside it. As an example, as I stated earlier, it is proven that the universe (hence the space) is bounded and it’s increasing for now, but a long time from now it will start decreasing. What IS outside the boundaries? Nothing! It even is not vacuum, there is nothing, not even time exist there!  (Another good answer is that we don't know, and we'll never know, because we can't reach there and see). It is obvious that comprehending the meaning of “nothing” i
1003312
The bible could be the place where he got his theory, but unlikely.  The theory that anti-matter exists comes from the big bang theory, which is comes out of scientific thought that there could be another explanation to our existence.  The liklihood that someone would come up with a different explanation using someone elses is small.  And anti-matter is a pretty far-fetched theory with no observable, reproducible, reproductions of anti-matter.
124342
I am a Christian, and I believe the world was created by God. Every finest detail was His idea.\n\nLet me staff my point. Scientist of today believe in evolution. This theory states that everything you see today was created by chance. It states that right in the beginning, a little one-cell'ed animal fell into the ocean by accident. This animal started to grow and learned to swim and to have kids. Later on, it found out that it could live on land, and (over millions of years) grew feet to walk on. The evolution process went through all the different stages of animal life, and at last humans came into existence.\n\nMy first objection towards this is that, if humans were evolved, two humans had to be "evolved" or "born" at the very same time for humans to continue to exist. It is insane to think that mankind came from only the evolution of one man. There had to be a number of men which "evolved" at the very same time. Now that is a lot asked.\n\nI want to tell you a story which Sir Isaac Newton used to prove that evolution is false. One day, one of his friends (a devout evolutionist) was sitting at Sir Isaac's desk. Sir Isaac was busy doing some work. The friend was busy admiring a very beautiful model of the universe which stood on Sir Isaac's table. \nThe friend then asked, "Who made this thing?"\n"No one," replied Sir Isaac bluntly.\n"No, really, tell me who made this thing. It is very beautiful." said the friend.\nTo which Sir Isaac replied, "All the pieces of that model were just lying around here, and they all just started to drift toward each other, and one day when I came here, this beautiful thing was standing on my desk!"\n\nI think Sir Isaac really answered the question.\n\nHope I helped you out on that one...
1044186
I think your on the right track my friend, but just expand your thinking a little bit on this subject. One of the most interesting theories I've heard about this subject comes from a book "Stalking the Wild Pendulum"- (written by a self taught Astrophysicist!)It asserts that where there is matter there is consciousness and where there is consciousness there is an aspect of "God"  Rather then God having a self encapsulated ego, god can be thought of all that is and all that is not.  This is often referred to as the "god head" or the "Prime Mover."  There may be some unification between the belief in God and in Evolution.  "God" emerged from the void realized "Himself" through "His" creation and then returned to the void.\nIn terms of your question regarding Homo Sapiens- our predecessors didn't evolve from the apes- although prehistoric man was "ape-like"  Homo Erectus started to use tools to break open bones for the fat rich marrow inside to feed a very large and developing brain.  Apparently big brains require lots of energy!  The brain of our strain of primates distinguished themselves by all that Grey matter up there, unlike our "ape" cousins.
885546
The big bang theory explains why ALL matter in the universe is expanding outwards from a central point in space (just like it would if there were, let’s say, an explosion) and that is all it explains. No, it doesn’t collapse and expand again.\n\nWe do not fully understand evolution. It is a theory…….The theory which all the evidence suggest, hence the reason it is the accepted theory. It doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of life, there is no evidence to formulate a theory on the origin yet but we are working on it.
999613
This sort of thinking should be based on observation. You can come up with any theory you like, but if it does not explain what is seen it is useless.\n\nOn this basis:\n\n1. the universe (and implcitly nature) had a beginning, about 13.7 billion years ago\n2. that beginning did not require a creator (though you may choose to believe in one - you just won't find him experimentally)
1170276
Ahhh, I like your question, deep thought....\n\nThe best thing I can come up with after much thought of the creation of the universe is that it is a result of chaos from the lawlessness of nothingness.  I have wrote this in another answer to another question b-4.  The creation of the universe can not be explained by physics we have.  Physical laws did not exist at the instant of the big bang.  I believe the universe we live in today could have been 10 billion times more massive or 10 billion times less massive as it was dictated from lawlessness.  \n\nNow a very interesting thought I have recently pondered is our existence is actually a 'plan' of the universe in effort to thwart its' inevitable demise.  Maybe our universe has a urning, as we do, to live forever, and from the moment of its' creation there was the plan to allow circumstances within it allowing life to form and evolve in hopes that one day we or some other intelligent life could figure out a way to make the universe last, or live, forever.
65239
In accordance with the physical laws of this universe, it is impossible for the matter in the big bang theory to have come out of nothing or to have just always existed.  It is impossible for something to come out of nothing... I'm sure you agree with this.  Also, the universe is expanding, which indicates that it had a beginning point in time.  So you're question appears to be, "If it is impossible for the earth to have always been in existance, how is it logical to believe that God has always been in existance?"\n\nThe thing is, we know that the earth had a beginning and that it is impossible for it to have just come about on its own by the physical laws of this world.  But if God created everything (which I believe He did), then He is not bound by the laws He created.  He made up the laws of physics.  How could He be limited to those laws?  \n\nWe cannot think of God in terms of our physical world.  God made up the rules, therefore God is not under the rules.  He is eternal.  The world which He created is not. \n\nHere's another thought I'm just going to throw out here, even though it does not go right along with your original question.  If you believe that you have a soul or a spirit, or if you believe in any type of spirit beings, how could these have come about by purely by physical means?  Can spiritual things come from physical things?  If this world only came about by matter and not by God, how could matter produce spiritual things?  \n\n\n"For by Him [Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisble, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."  Colossians 1:16-17 ([Jesus] was added by me for clarification of the pronoun Him.)
1157600
Evolution is NOT science. There is nothing scientific about it. It is a religion. You cannot prove that we came from nothing. Its not even possible. You cannot create nor distroy matter, thats physics. So then how did all this "matter" around us get here. There has to be a creator. The animals may have different variations but they're still the same kind. Everything comes after its own kind. Same with people, there are tall, short, skinny, big. You'll never get a bannana from a fish. The reason you say the earth is billions of years old is because you think if you give it enough time it might happen. God created everything.
385434
One of the most fundemental Laws of Physics is that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. The question I pose to science as to the existence of GOD is that if this Law is true, then where did all the matter and energy ORIGINALLY come from?
551677
Take a look at the amazing universe all around you - The galaxies, stars and planets... the beauty of mountains and trees and everything that lives, grows and breathes on the Earth.  No sane person believes that the great complexity of the natural universe in general and living organisms in particular could just exist fully formed with no cause and no origin.\n\nSo, how can any sane person possibly believe that all this amazing complexity is sourced in an intelligent designer who just exists fully formed with no cause and no origin?  That would be completely absurd.  The only possible explanation is that the universe had a natural origin, and that the order and complexity we observe in the universe has arisen over billions of years from simplicity and chaos by the effect of unthinking, undirected natural processes.  Science, in the form of cosmology and biology, shows us that this is indeed the case.\n\nThe idea of a creator god has no explanatory value - It is intellectual laziness, a non-answer, not a solution to the question of existence but a way of avoiding the question.  It should and will be consigned to history along with all our other naive superstitious beliefs.
353833
There is conjecture that the universe began with a big bang, out of nothing. If matter formed, then anti-matter also must have formed at the same time to have the various laws of physics as we know them hold good. Some scientist postulate that the big mishap in Siberia in 1906 could have happened  because of the passing of a small quantity of anti-matter. Remember, for anti-matter, we could be as dangerous as is is to us. \n\nI think anti-matter has been created in small quantities in labs, and yes you are right, it could be harnessed to meet with our energy requirements.
871779
That is what science is trying to figure out.\n\nOne theory is that all matter and energy exploded in a Big Bang from a point particle or singularity.\n\nHowever, current technology prevents us from going back to time zero or the origin of the universe. At a point in time (just s tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang) all laws of physics break down and yields meaningless answers.\n\nThere are several other theories as well. Another thought (that has been largely abandoned) is that the universe was continually expanding, in cycles, from a Big Bang to a Big Crunch.\n\nThere is another theory that the universe is constantly folding over on itself, continuously annihilating and creating itself.\n\nAnd in quantum physics, the is a concept which even suggest that reality, all of human experience, may be nothing short of a personal subjective concept without substance at all.\n\nQuantum physics is a mysterious world that suggests that many of our concepts are too limited and that there are worlds we can't even imagine (parallel universes, many worlds, branes, dimensions, steady state, etc.)\n\nOur knowledge and understanding of the universe is akin to the knowledge and understanding that an ant has of the world economy.
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
288847
One question: What blew up (Big Bang)? For this theory to work, you either choose to believe in eternal matter (that stuff that blew up and we all "evolved from" to begin with) or an Eternal God. Therefore, evolution is a "Belief System." Like it or not, you have to take a step of faith in one direction or the other to believe in the THEORY of evolution, either way, faith and belief are still a requirement.