I'm not too sure what you are referring to here, I believe the universe is ancient, no problem with that. I've got no problem with the big bang theory either. I'm just wondering where matter/energy came from.

Haha

Pot calling the kettle black!

However its worded, matter exists, where did it come from? This is a simple point, no matter what the current definition of "the universe" is. Where did the forces/matter/energy in these universes come from?

I am getting this kind of response:
Matter always existed, let's not think about where it came from and just accept that fact.

That is neither logical nor scientific, I would refer to that logic as a "head-in-the-sand" approach.

Whether he exists or not is very relevant to you, even if you prefer to have an agnostic approach. "Enjoying youself" becomes a bit meaningless when you mature over time in the light of the deeper satisfaction you can get from doing good for others (Maslows hierarchy). With the desire to do good comes the heightened conscience of avoiding damaging others, whether you do this from a religious point of view or not. When you realise that you continuously damage others and yourself and can't help it, is when your conscience will turn you to God because we do need help, being a "good person" doesn't actually come naturally. So let's see how you fare from now, I am guessing interesting times ahead for you.

Thanks for acknowledging that "before the big bang is a mystery". that is my whole point, no-one knows where this universe came from(universes as per your explanation), or how matter formed, its a simple point to understand. Without any evidence to the contrary the theory of a creator stands on equal footing for the creation of matter. Its only the strong tendency to regard "God" as an illogical entity that would disregard God as a valid theory for the source of energy/matter.



Evolution is forcing facts, what is observed is "devolution". The inserting of damaging genes into chromosomal patterns and extinction of species. The species that are left either undergo microevolution to fill the ecological gaps, yet maintain their chromosomal patterns without any useful gene insertions. Or they devolve, reducing their complexity. This is what is observed with genome sequencing: damaged or reduced number of useful functional genes over time. Inserted genes have no usefulness.

No. I am not talking about the known universe, I'm talking about the universe as described in Wikipedia, it includes ALL MATTER/ENERGY, and because of this it is a closed system with a certain mass/energy. No known mechanism can break the law of conservation of energy/mass and so for now those who don't believe in God have to settle for an unknown inexplicable source for all energy/mass. This is a simple point, most people would simple agree that the source of matter is unknown.

The big bang theory does not explain where matter came from, it just assumes matter and energy was all consoladated in one place.

Well maybe one day they will discover a way in which matter can be created from nothing. Until then we have the knowledge that matter exists and yet we do not understand where it originated. We have the creator theory and the "I've got no idea how it all arrived" view. I prefer the creator theory.

I did assume we both knew what the word universe means: the definition includes all matter.
The universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists,[1] including all matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space.[2][3]

You guys are being a little silly here. If its not closed, what matter and energy can possibly exist outside the universe??? Nothing is outside the universe.

Good question, you see I have no problems with impossibilities and supernatural inexplicable events. The scientific inability to explain some things can often be a pointer towards the supernatural. In the same way as some believe energy always existed , I believe God always existed. I believe BOTH VIEWS involve a miracle because physics cannot explain the origin of matter.

Aaaah, so you agree that you have no answer to the inexplicable observation of matter existing, you believe the universe is full of energy that just was there and you do not understand how it got there. You believe in a force that just appeared out of nowhere and yet God seems far-fetched to you?

Exactly, that is my point you are making for me. The enrgy came from somewhere, I ask you ...where?

Sorry I don't get the argument that matter or energy just always existed. There had to be an origin.

Your whole argument crashes down with your one single statement "energy has always existed".

My argument is simply "where did that energy originate?"
You seem to have missed my point.

By expanding, they mean that its travelling outwards, the scientists don't mean that there is more matter observed over time. As I said, this would break one of the basic laws of physics, the law of conservation of energy/mass.

Hallelula! Atheists also believe in miracles, the spontaneous creation of matter from nothing that breaks well established and scientific laws of physics. Welcome to the world of the supernatural :) lol

True, I believe the universe is ancient too, but how do you think that mass or energy first appeared trillions of years ago? Science relies on the fact that we cannot create energy or mass out of nothing, in a closed environment, the total ALWAYS remains constant.(Its a scientific law)

Sorry, I'm not following the question? Matter exists and it came from somewhere. Ice already existed as matter, it was water before, so I don't get your example.

Wikipedia:



Mass and energy in the universe remain absolutely constant: Wikipedia



The fact that the universe exists, means a miracle has occurred, mass and energy came from nothing, with no scientific explanation. Whether we believe in God or no God, Einstein's theory of special relativity was broken, matter came from nothing. Instead of the combination of mass/energy remaining constant, it increased to current levels even though we do not observe or understand how its possible for matter to create itself, and physics relies on the 100% observable and reliable law of conservation of mass-energy.

I was reading through some of those arguments, and I think the problem with evolutionists is that they find difficulty getting into the creationists mindset. I found all the evidence put forward in the first few pages unconvincing, all pointing to creationism as well as evolution.

For example, here's a quote, showing that they didnt even consider creation as an option, because creation would immediately explain why two creatures of similar shape and ability would have the most similar proteins. To assume common descent instead of common intelligent creator (that repeats the best design instead of using random designs every time he creates an organism) is merely an assumption. Humans and chimps use their hands and brains better than other organisms, any logical engineer would assume an intelligent designer would have huge overlaps of major portions of the design of two inventions with similar function. Imagine two cars with slightly differing engine sizes (1.6L and 1.8L) being produced by one factory in completely different ways, each being more functional and less functional in certain areas. No, the factory comes up with the best combination of functional features, a basic core design, and then moulds that design around the differences. This is intelligent design. This is DNA.



On the contrary, the chance of two very similar organisms having a unique genetic feature common to both, is very high if you consider an intelligent designer, their statistics are nonsensical when a creator is considered.

And as I said to rskit, both the creation of matter and the creation of life itself are statistically impossible processes, they just do not spontaneously occur. For this very reason, scientists should at least consider creationism as an empirically possible alternative.


The following quote is a strong argument that favours evolution, but I have come across it before and there is a simple explanation for similar virusses found in similar chromosomal patterns: similar weakpoints. Chimps are therefore susceptible to the same retrovirus insertions. Once inserted, they are passed on genetically to the next generation. Of the 300000 retrovirusses in humans we share seven or more with chimps, this small amount of shared retroviruses just points to similar susceptibility in our closest design match.

Thanks for that, I didn't take it personally, when I come across stuff like that I just like to highlight it because I can , LOL