Can evolutionists explain what was the catalyst involved in the sudden appearance of the universe from nothing

Evolutionists will tell you they're biologists, and to go bother a cosmologist with your question. The cosmologist will tell you that there is no way to determine what conditions (if any) existed before the Big Bang. In general, the question of what was there before the universe is meaningless. Time and space exist only within the confines of the universe, so references to "before" or "outside" the universe have no meaning.

There has been speculation that the creation of our universe was part of of some larger process - a metaverse of many universes, or a recurring cycle of creation and destruction. But these ideas remain speculation - we can't find any way to confirm or deny them with physical evidence.

First of all, you need to ask a cosmologist.

There is an equation in quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg uncertainty. It says that delta(n) * delta(p) <=h-bar. When people say that one of the things about quantum mechanics is that you can't know where something is (n) and where it's going (p) at the same time, that is the equation that they are talking about.

If you play around with the equation a bit, you get the same thing in a different form: delta(E) * delta(t) <= h-bar. This equation says that the universe forgives small imbalances in net Energy, so long as they occupy very little time. The quantum foam, the emptiness between particles, is full of pairs of particles and their antiparticles (e.g., protons and antiprotons, electrons and posistrons, etc.) that spring up out of nowhere and collapse into each other again. The net energy in the Universe changes slightly, but only for a short time, so the Universe doesn't notice.

Except that sometimes, these virtual particles interact with what we think of as real particles, causing changes.

And sometimes (per Stephen Hawking) it happens too close to a black hole, and one virtual particle gets sucked into the event horizon, leaving the other one, mateless, to become part of the real Universe. Thus do blackholes lose energy and evaporate.

Now, here's where all this is going. The net energy of the Universe is pretty low. Low enough that the time it could exist could be quite long and still be allowed under the Heisenberg uncertainty. Especially as shortly after the Big Bang, the Universe underwent a period of rapid inflation that rendered its components too far apart to return to the initial singularity state.

The fascinating thing about this is that if our theories are correct (and all evidence points to their being so) then this spontaneous creation of matter can happen anywhere and at any time. The metaverse might be filled with island universes as large as our or larger, where the laws of chemistry and physics might differ radically from our own. Some suggest that a wormhole such as might be built by the rotating singularity of a black hole might lead to another universe. Some say that this could never happen unless the two universes were fundamentally similar in physical laws.

Some say we can never touch these universes. They might lie atop our Universe, as close to one page in a book to another, but separated in a dimension that we cannot perceive, much like the two men on the upper stairway in MC Escher's Relativity. http://www.inspiredeconomies.com/treasurechest/ima...

They are two different types of sciences. One explains the species of life on our tiny planet. The other is the explination of the beginnings of the universe as we know it.

The new science on the matter is a complicated one called string theory. Saying all atoms are made of tiny vibrating strings all moving and vibrating at different pitches to create everything. The universe may be made of giant membranes that when these membranes collide they spark matter thus creating our universe. The weird thing is they keep coming up with multi-universes. We are not alone and the universe is stranger than we can ever know. What if there is a universe inside every atom? If we could look so far into the small we will start to see galaxies that would be a trip. I don't think we suddenly came from nothing, we just can't grasp the concepts yet. We are infants in this sort of thing. If we don't kill our selves with technology I'd love for humans to one day solve the mystery of the universe. Google up string theory and see if you can get a better understanding, its tough stuff. I don't think I explain it all right.

Probably not because your question really doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

Evolution does not deal with the beginning of the universe. That field of study falls within the realm of cosmology.

Cosmology is a highly theoretical field which involves complex mathematical concepts. Cosmologist often have no way to test their theories, especially when they are dealing with things that happened before the existance of the universe as we know it.

One theory, called membrane theory, theorizes that the current universe formed by the collision of two membranes which existed in other dimentions. The collision created the 3D dimention and mass is the overlapping of the membranes.

Of course this is a weak theory. There is no way to test it as of yet and it is only one of a few theories.

No cosmologist actually believes the universe came from nothing. That would be like living in a cup of water and knowing nothing outside of the cup of water and saying the water came from nowhere when in actuality, it was poured from a pitcher which exists outside the cup.

evolutionists??? do you mean cosmologists? Nobody knows how the universe came to be. I don't think science can answer this question because as I understand it, science deals with the physical world and all its properties. If I may rephrase your question, I think you're asking, "what jump- started the physical universe?" Maybe there is no beginning and no end. The concept of a beginning and an end is a human concept. The physical universe is perpetually in motion even before the beginning of time as we know it(the big bang). Something(space quakes) stirred this supermassive condensed ball of matter and caused it to explode and expand. You don't know that there was nothing before the big bang. You're assuming that non-matter somehow became matter. This is the stuff that cosmologists and theologists brainstorm over and you know what, nobody knows.

Evolution is a part of biology. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. As of yet the origins of the universe are uncertain, but the big bang is the best theory so far. Unlike creationists, scientists haven't given up in finding an answer for these questions.

There was NEVER nothing.

The MASS of the UNIVERSE is constant, always was and always is. Can't be changed only converted.

It started with the Primordial Atom, which varies in size (depending on who you talk to) from a Molecule to a Red Giant star.

ALL the MASS of the Universe was in that "primordial atom" and it got SO compressed FUSION occured and BANG!

Expansion.

AT 186,000 miles per second.

There is MASS (quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, etc) and SPACE, the gaps between them.

Eventually you run out of GAPS and FUSION occurs by SUB ATOMICS hitting each other.

Then things HAVE to expand.

Don't ask why, know one gives a clear answer.

Evolution only applies to life on Earth. Both the "Big Bang Theory" and Evolution have to do with what some call a miraculous appearence of something from nothing or life from a jumble of seemingly random elements. It is because we haven't yet pin-pointed the catalyst in each one that they both remain only "Theories" and not Scientific Law. No matter how much other credible information we have, Scientists still lack the one piece of the puzzle that proves very possible theory.

--THEY TRY AND FAIL BECAUSE:

*** ct p. 48 From “the RNA World” or Another World? ***

Appendix B

From “the RNA World” or Another World?

In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?

In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”

Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”

There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . IS FATALLY FLAUD (my caps)because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”

Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains."

--To simplify what the scientists are saying above--is they do not know who or what ignited everything!

That is a job for the cosmologists. By the way, don't confuse the term "Evolutionists" with the term "Atheists" or "Agnostics". Many people who understand evolution as a biological process separate from religious beliefs are believers in God. Creationists are money-driven people that do not even approach understanding of that which they deride.