Evolution Questions

[Astreja]

So, Val, if you don't believe in evolution you favour the Talking Snake™ Hypothesis instead?

[val5662]

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yup.  How about yourself?

No.

That seems strange to me..as others have pointed out..whether or not human beings evolved from atoms isn't even an open question.  We know that we did and continue to do so.  The "how" has always been the part that's subject to theory.  

I could, much more easily, understand incredulity with regards to some specific evolutionary theory than with the evolutionary fact.  

Is there any chance that you're confusing the two, in your mind?

@The question above. Nothing exploded. The big bag wasn't an explosion. I'm really not following this line of questioning..which, apparently has little if anything to do with evolution, in fact or theory.

[Astreja]

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

It wasn't an explosion.  It was an expansion of a high-density substance, possibly comprised of subatomic particles that have always existed.

[downbeatplumb]

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

There are a few theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Various new models of what preceded and caused the Big Bang have been proposed as a result of the problems created by quantum mechanics. One model, using loop quantum gravity, aims to explain the beginnings of the Universe through a series of Big Bounces, in which quantum fluctuations cause the Universe to expand. This formulation also predicts a cyclic model of universes, with a new universe being created after an old one is destroyed, each with different physical constants.[3] Another formulation, based on M-theory and observations of the cosmic microwave background, states that the Universe is but one of many in a multiverse, and has budded off from another universe as a result of quantum fluctuations, as opposed to our Universe being all that exists

Notice none of them mention a big bearded fella that doesn't like people working on Sundays or Fridays depending on your flavour of delusion.

So we have evidence for the big bang and good ideas of what went before, no god required.

[Jesster]

Any time I see someone asking about evolution or the big bang on an atheist website, I instantly know that they aren't being genuine about their interest. If they really wanted to know, there's plenty of science websites that could fill you in on the details far better.

[pocaracas]

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

Clearly, you didn't even read the first paragraph of the links I left for you.

If thou won't give me that courtesy, why should I even try to correct your ignorant view of what the big bang is?

[val5662]

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

It wasn't an explosion.  It was an expansion of a high-density substance, possibly comprised of subatomic particles that have always existed.

So you basically believe "subatomic particles that have always existed" caused the "big bang" and you refuse to believe that a Creator always existed??? Ok....

---

Ok, lets go with the "Big Bang" theory since a lot of you agree with that.
In your opinion, not somebody else's writings, what exploded at that instant?

Clearly, you didn't even read the first paragraph of the links I left for you.

If thou won't give me that courtesy, why should I even try to correct your ignorant view of what the big bang is?

You missed the "not somebody else's writings".

[pocaracas]

It wasn't an explosion.  It was an expansion of a high-density substance, possibly comprised of subatomic particles that have always existed.

So you basically believe "subatomic particles that have always existed" caused the "big bang" and you refuse to believe that a Creator always existed??? Ok....

Amazing how they never go off script.

[downbeatplumb]

So you basically believe "subatomic particles that have always existed" caused the "big bang" and you refuse to believe that a Creator always existed??? Ok....

Subatomic particles have been proved to exist, a creator not so much.

And anyway the idea that "a creator did it" explains nothing.

Where did the creator get the stuff?

You see by saying a creator did it you are now doubling the problem, you not only have to explain where the stuff came from but where the creator, a supposedly complex being, came from and how did it get complex?
how did it evolve?