How does science explain creation?

"Science can't create matter and it can't destroy it."

Since science is a process for learning facts, no it cannot.

If you mean that something cannot come from nothing, you are literally a century behind science.

For thousands of years, people have said that their god was behind what they didn't understand -- life, lightning, stars, earthquakes, the origin of life, the world or the universe, etc. Positing a god to supposedly answer a question solves nothing. It just stops you from asking more questions.

It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up a god and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades science has discovered some good answers.

There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a quantum vacuum fluctuation -- via natural processes.

In relativity, gravity is negative energy and matter is positive energy. Because the two seem to be equal in absolute total value, our observable universe appears balanced to the sum of zero. Our universe could thus have come into existence without violating conservation of mass and energy — with the matter of the universe condensing out of the positive energy as the universe cooled, and gravity created from the negative energy. When energy condenses into matter, equal parts of matter and antimatter are created — which annihilate each other to form energy. However there is a slight imbalance to the process, which results in matter dominating over antimatter.

I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd."

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today."

— Isaac Asimov

"As far as I can see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God."

— Georges Lemaître, Catholic priest who first proposed what became the Big Bang Theory

For more, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss.

-

With no evidence of any "creation," there's nothing to "explain."

"...how science created all the matter in the universe..."

Um, "science" is a method: a proven reliable method for finding out facts about the universe. That's all it is. It didn't "create" anything.

"Science can't create matter and can't destroy it." Again, see above about "science." However, using the facts we've learned through science, we humans *have* both created and destroyed matter. You should keep up.

Finally, there's no reason to think there's any "creator" because there's no evidence of any such thing. That's not "closed-minded," it's a fact. If you want to claim there's a creator, then you need to provide some evidence there is such a thing -- or your claim is worthless. You should honestly say, "I don't know," rather than use a ridiculous and fallacious argument from ignorance and incredulity to claim there's a "creator."

Peace.

"but they never explain it or show how they have an understanding of how every molecule in existence suddenly came into being"

The Law of Conservation of Matter states matter cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang Theory, as I suspect you are talking about, doesn't say matter ever was.

"But the big bang is a theory that explains the shape and velocity of matter in the universe, not the creation of that matter that it is comprised of."

Again, the matter is and always has existed. Nothing and no one created it.

"They quote a blurb from Steven Hawking in Time magazine but they don't have so much as a theory to back up how matter simply comes into existence."

Nice strawman. Do you even know what a theory is? It's a well supported hypothesis backed up by tests and observation.

Well, you have failed to use logic and science, so see ya later.

Dude, I know, right?

People will blindly respond that some magical deity from no where, whose presence and stature is unexplained and whose followers believe based on a book "On account of God" Himself and random humans who claim that God came to them, will try to show how they have every understanding of their God's intentions. They can only explain the phenomena of the creation of matter and life by this magical deity's fairy-tale-like happy ending where he creates everything in 7 days. THAT is how they explain it.

They throw out the God's ability and the spontaneous existence of every single thing through this fairytale, but it just shows their ignorance.

Haha, okay, so there may be a creator, and every day we may feud on how potato may be pronounced differently, but will there be any way to prove that in the beginning, creation was made from the inexplicable forces of physics or a random deity thinking, "Hey! Why not make some life!"

This "question" was not as much a question as it was an attack on atheists, and until we know the origin of matter, leave atheists be.

I agree they are blind. Bottom line, theories are beliefs, few facts, a lot of social construction. Time after time hypothesis (guess) after hypothesis there will never be a sufficient explanation of creation other than a supernatural being. Science stops at natural. Same research studies no different result = Insanity. You'll miss out on God's blessing trying to please yourself with science.

Why ask someone here to explain it to you when all information is at your fingertips?

We don't know everything about our beginnings. as I'm sure you are aware.

But there is no evidence that a deity was involved.

You make the point that matter and energy can't be destroyed, but only transformed. That would seem to suggest that all the bits are eternal, and always in flux.

Debate tip: Instead of using a shotgun approach by spewing out a plethora of unsubstantiated accusations and suppositions, pick ONE thing that you actually know something about and build a case around it. Until, then, you aren't worth talking to.

It cannot. Science by definition is the study of the natural universe in natural terms. The supernatural lies totally outside the purview of science, and Creation was a supernatural event, with no possible natural explanation.

It doesn't. Science is an empirical exercise, dealing exclusively with what can be observed.