8 replies to this topic

[Fisher]

Alright, as we all know, the evolutionists believe that we all came from nothing 4.6 billion years ago. Over a long period of time all this nothingness compacted into a dot. Over millions of years this dot began to spin and it started spinning so fast that it exploded. And then after billions of years life popped up and here we are today.
I have a few questions for you evolutionists.

1) Where did the dirt to fill that dot come from?
2) Where did the energy to compress that nothingness come from?
3) Where did the energy to get that dot spinning come from?
4) Why are some of the galaxies spinning backwards? According to the law of Angular Momentum all the galaxies would be spinning in the same direction as the dot was spinning all those years ago.

[st_dissent]

Alright, as we all know, the evolutionists believe that we all came from nothing 4.6 billion years ago. Over a long period of time all this nothingness compacted into a dot.   Over millions of years this dot began to spin and it started spinning so fast that it exploded. And then after billions of years life popped up and here we are today.
I have a few questions for you evolutionists.

1) Where did the dirt to fill that dot come from?
2) Where did the energy to compress that nothingness come from?
3) Where did the energy to get that dot spinning come from?
4) Why are some of the galaxies spinning backwards? According to the law of Angular Momentum all the galaxies would be spinning in the same direction as the dot was spinning all those years ago.

I assume that you are talking about the Big Bang, and if so you are extremely misguided. First of all the “dot” you are referring to is what physicists call a singularity. Scientists can only really talk about the universe (including Big Bang theory) from the Plank time (~10^-44 sec) on. And the “dot” was not full of dirt. You see, dirt is made up of molecules, molecules are in turn made of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and quarks are the limit to experimental verification as of now. However quarks are formed and combined is what scientists believe was the result of the Big Bang.

Anyway, here are some links:
http://www.umich.edu...265/bigbang.htm

http://cosmology.ber...ang_Primer.html



And how do you explain this:



Read all about this here: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/


Now if we know the universe is expanding, is it not logical to assume that in the past it was much denser?

[OC1]

One comment-

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

[George R]

OC1 - your point is indeed a valid one ... at this stage nobody has established the connection between the FORUM TOPIC evolution and this thread about origin of the universe.

If nobody does make the coinnection ... I would be inclined to move all this to a more general place of debate. We used to have a section for more open topics before the previous board was hacked.... Let me wait for a response to your point first, while I investigate whether a better topic are is available.

[Fisher]

I assume that you are talking about the Big Bang, and if so you are extremely misguided.  First of all the “dot” you are referring to is what physicists call a singularity.  Scientists can only really talk about the universe (including Big Bang theory) from the Plank time (~10^-44 sec) on.  And the “dot” was not full of dirt.  You see, dirt is made up of molecules, molecules are in turn made of atoms, atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks, and quarks are the limit to experimental verification as of now.  However quarks are formed and combined is what scientists believe was the result of the Big Bang. 

Anyway, here are some links:
http://www.umich.edu...265/bigbang.htm

http://cosmology.ber...ang_Primer.html
And how do you explain this:



Read all about this here:  http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now if we know the universe is expanding, is it not logical to assume that in the past it was much denser?

So, what you are saying is that the singularity was filled with quarks. Where did they come from?

[Fisher]

One comment-

Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of the universe.

If it doesn't then I would like to know how you think we got here.
I believe that in the beggining God created the universe.

[George R]

Fisher

I can only completely agree with you (for what my opinion is worth) that God got us here.

But I still dont see yet why this thread should be placed on the Evolution Science part of a Forum. You are welcome to help me see more clearly.

As I see it so far ... Maybe the best fit is on a philosophical debate about God's existence or a science debate on the Universal Origins / Cosmology.

Can you help me decide... Would a complete win or loss for your position be a compelling nail primarily in the coffin of evolution? Would debate here enlighten the task of interpreting the pros and cons of evolution?

Thanks

[OC1]

For what it's worth, i don't particularly care or mind if the occaisional post goes into the "wrong" section of the forum.

But what does bother me is the comingling of evolutionary theory with other ideas, like the origins of the universe, radiometric dating, abiogenesis, etc.

All these things are certainly worthy of discussion, but they should not be discussed as being part of "evolutionary theory", because they are not!