Question to you evolutionists?

"Question to you evolutionists?"

This is sure to be good ;)

"I am not an evolutionist but i respectfully have a question to ask."

You're cracking me up already.

"How could the Big Bang occur and life spontaneously erupt if it is a law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed?"

Big Bang says NOTHING about creating anything.

There was never nothing.

Evolution has NOTHING to do with Big Bang or life starting.

Fail 1

"Also, it is a proven fact that life cannot spontaneously appear."

It is NOT a proven fact at all.

Fail 2.

"I am putting this on the religion forum just for more answers, not because i am bringing God or spirituality into this."

Meh...

~

I find it interesting that the first two respondents chose to ignore the meaning behind your question in favor of attacking you for not mentioning abiogenesis. Neither made any effort to answer it.

Although all three are impossible I certainly do believe that God created the universe via the Big Bang, He created life through abiogenesis and He guided that life's development through evolution. The fact is that all three can be seen in Genesis 1.

The Big Bang by the statement "In the Beginning" stating that like the Big Bang the universe had a beginning and did not exist forever (which was a big argument of atheists before the knowledge of the Big Bang). It can be seen in the next line "Now the Earth was a formless void" which although this fact could not have been known by the author was in fact the way the Earth was in its formation stage. It also can be seen in the curious statement that light and darkness was created on "Day" 1 but the sun and moon were not "created" until "day" 4. And yet that would have been precisely what it would have seemed had anyone been on the planet at that time.... though a settling dust/moisture cloud one would not be able to see the sun/moon..... just light and darkness.

Abiogenesis can be seen by the fact that if you read closely God did not "zap" life into being. Rather in BOTH the case of vegetation AND animal life the Bible says that God ordered the "EARTH to bring forth" these things into existence. A process is therefore implied.

Evolution can be seen in the order of the appearance of life. Vegetation, sea life including "monsters", then mammals and finally man.

In a book more than 4,000 years old seeming to get right what could be seen to agree with ONE modern scientific concept would certainly be a surprise.... getting 4 right should really raise some eyebrows. (The 4th being Pangea.... The Bible states "Let the seas come into one body and let dry land appear". Obviously if the seas were one body then so too was the "dry land".)

These are two completely isolated questions, and neither has anything to do with evolution... that is, unless you're using the creationist version of the term "evolution", which basically refers to everything that disagrees with their particular version of a literal interpretation of the Bible. Evolution explains how existing life changes over time. It's separated from the origin of the universe by about 10 billion years. It also doesn't address how life got here - evolution is a result of inheritance, variation, and selection, so it's irrelevant how that life got here in the first place, so long as it has those properties.

For the first question, I don't think you understand what the big bang theory actually states. It wasn't an explosion from nothing. It's complicated, but the best explanation is that it was an expansion of the universe, energy, and matter from something else that was very different. It also doesn't explain where the universe came from, only what happened in the first few instants of its existence.

The second question is really more of a matter for abiogenesis. You're using an overly-broad version of the law of biogenesis, though. When we say that it's a proven fact that life can't spontaneously appear, we're talking about complex life. The first life was incredibly simple, much, much, much simpler than even the most basic modern bacteria. It was little more than a self-replicating chunk of RNA. It's also important to understand that the oceans, at the time, were warm and chock full of chemicals. It's from these chemical reactions that the first life (which is, itself, just chemical reactions) very gradually arose, slowly picking up the properties of life, bit by bit. It was less "life from non-life" and more "complex chemical reactions from slightly less complex chemical reactions".

My advice is to keep studying. I know it seems like you're getting a good understanding of science in school, but in truth, high school only skims the surface of the material. Real science is far more amazing and complex, and a lot more nuanced than you think. If you understand how the laws of physics work, it's easier to understand how the universe behaved right after its birth, and if you understand how life works, it's origins make a lot more sense.

So much wrong in so few words.

1. Matter CAN be created and destroyed, it is well understood in physics how to do this, and our sun destroys THOUSANDS OF TONS of matter EVERY SECOND.

2. It is a "proven fact" that life cannot spontaneously appear? Look around you. Life is here. There was no life on the Earth when it formed, so obviously it had to have appeared spontaneously.

3. You make the mistake that most creationists make, that of mixing up and conflating three DIFFERENTdisciplines.

The Big Bang is the study of how the universe formed, and involves cosmology, astrophysics, and high-energy physics.

Abiogenesis is the study of the origins of life, and involves high-energy chemistry, biochemistry, and physics.

Evolution is the study of how life, once started, diversified into that myriad forma we see around us every day, and how they're all interrelated. It involves biology, chemistry, and these days computational DNA analysis.

Its not a Law of Physics that Matter cannot be created or destroyed and has never been so.

It was a Law of Physics that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it has been found that this does not apply at the quantum level.

In any case the laws of physics only operate in this way within our universe, before the universe those laws would not be applicable.

Its is not a prvoen fact that life cannot spontaneously appear, that "Law" only ever applied to the spontaneous formation of complex life forms (e.g. Flies).

Big Bang is cosmology, not biology.

Read up on The Big Bang and the singularity that existed before it.

We don't know exactly HOW the first life emerged. But you could look into Emergence Theory -- about how complexity results from simpler elements and processes.

You could learn science, but not on this forum.

It is NOT a proven fact that life can't ever spontaneously appear in any environment.

There are innumerable resources -- books, websites, documentaries, lectures -- available. Why not use any of them, if you really want to understand?

Well, first look up what evolution actually is. The theory says NOTHING nor tries to say anything about the origins of life. That's an entirely different field of study. Look up abiogenesis for more.

"Also, it is a proven fact that life cannot spontaneously appear."

Where's your nobel prize for that research? Look up the Miller-Urey experiment. They've shown that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can occur spontaneously from inorganic matter. Sure, they didn't observe a cell being formed, but just because something hasn't been shown in laboratory conditions doesn't mean we assert and believe the inverse.

I'm not sure what the beginning of the universe has to do with laws within the universe, but some theories suggest that the total energy and matter in the universe sums to zero.

As for the claim that it's a proven fact that life cannot spontaneously appear, can you show me your source for this proven fact?

The origins of the matter that formed the singularity that gave rise to the Big Bang are a mystery. Life does not require the creation of matter. Living organisms take their matter from their environment. That's why you have to eat. It is not a proven fact that life cannot spontaneously appear, but that's quite irrelevant, since proponents of evolution aren't alleging that the life didn't appear spontaneously. We think that life was an outgrowth of proteins that mutated and became capable of replication. Things like viruses, which are neither appropriately called "living" or "non-living" are evidence of a transition from lesser proteins to living organisms. Organic material itself is just the result of chemical reactions - no more or less mysterious than the existence of water.

It is not a law of physics that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In fact, we've got big pieces of equipment that we use to create unusual forms of matter. And the sun's energy--of which only a tiny fraction reaches this planet--is produced by destruction of matter.

You see, matter is a special state of energy, and energy can pass into and out of that state. There is a law of physics that energy cannot be created or destroyed--but it CAN be converted to matter and back to energy.

It is not a proven fact that life cannot spontaneously appear. It is only a proven fact that under present conditions, we can count on life not spontaneously appearing very quickly in a sterile environment.

The application of any scientific law is restricted to the range of conditions in which it has been determined to operate. Just as Newtonian physics doesn't apply at quantum-mechanical scales, these laws do not apply to the cases in question.