Summations Only

Which part of "not an explosion" is giving you difficulty? And you are as usual ridiculously wrong.

Physics doesn't actually know if the Big Bang caused the laws of the universe. They may or may not have predated the Big Bang. Evolution is neither a theory of cosmology nor of the origin of life. Evolution is descent with modification and natural selection. Descent with modification can include random changes, but selection is not random. Whether a mutation is successful or not, whether it was selected for or against, selection is a non-random process imposed by the environment. The degree of successful adaptation governs the degree of success of a species.--Percy

The Big Bang, the term originating as one of ridicule by Fred Hoyle, was not an explosion but a very rapid expansion, especially the period of inflation. (Hoyle preferred a steady state theory of the universe.)--Percy

Physics does not know if the laws of the universe predated the Big Bang. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, though there are some hypotheses. Keep in mind that there was no time in our universe before the Big Bang, so concepts like "before the Big Bang" do not have much meaning. I you're asking me personally, then I don't know. Observational evidence indicates that the laws of the universe have remained unchanged since the Big Bang. Concerning the laws of the universe, there is no evidence indicating a process of descent with modification and natural selection, so evolution wouldn't apply.--Percy

I'm not very happy with that distinction. According to Wikipedia:

quote:

---

An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. link

---

Sounds fairly big-bangish to me.

Except, there isn't any 'release of energy' in the big bang. There isn't anyplace for the energy to be released to. There is a dissipation of energy that is there, but that is just because there is more space for that energy to fill up.However, one issue I have with the whole 'laws of nature' discussion about 'created'.. the so called 'laws of nature' are not prohibitive, but rather descriptive. IT isn't 'THis is what can't happened' but rather 'this is what we observe happening'.

Fair enough - but it's a pretty nit-picky distinction. The Big Bang was a one-off, after all, so I see no problem with calling it a "unique explosion".

And there is evidence for those things happening.Yet no evidence of any creator.

I have an opinion, and you have an opinion. Neither of us have proof. You just assert your opinion and then complain that others have not offered any proof.You are are a sham.

The name does not indicate what it describes. "Big Bang" was a pejorative name for the theory coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, and then widely adopted. An explosion is matter and energy moving through space, the Big Bang was an expansion of space. Big Bang: Expansion, NOT ExplosionAnd man other easily found explanations. We all do. I haven't looked yet but he doesn't disagree.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

According to that logic, God cannot be intelligent if he didn't come from an intelligent non random source.

Selection ONLY works if there is a magic beneficial mutation.It is therefore totally null and void if there is not amazing enough shakes of the dice, with tranistion phases of no help retained after one mutation to another. Hence, in adding to your impossible probability of supposed beneficial minor changes, a whole system change or organ change, etc etc would take the retension of mutations that are not signifcant nor selected magically even though being valueless, to all add up eventually to a signifcant so called beneficial mutation change. An absolute miracle by any standard. And without even viable transition species that failed in their organ mutational so called change again, no evidence exists of these magical random beneficial changes, that so called evolved living organisms.But let me get back to the TOPIC, its laws. And honest Percy admits evolution hasn;t a clue about the origin of life, nor about what or who created the laws.Hence I would suggest, He is RIGHT evolution doesnt have anything to do with the origins of life, or the origins of the laws of life and non life.Consequently all evolutionists can honestly say HERE is that , they have no idea. To this I agree 100 percent

God is ETERNAL, God or if you like Jesus was the ALPHA and OMEGA, and as He said always was.Remember He created time (SEE just started Light Speed Years, or Daniel 9, or 1000 Years or Genesis 1, etc etc..)Beyond light speed, there is no time but only the ETERNAL NOW.Thats math, thats physics, thats the truth.The Lord always was, He is the originator, and originated.Evolution as Percy says has no idea when life was created or when much less why.Back to the topic and showing that laws were created at one time, by the Lord, the Creator as evolutionists are admitting that evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life or the origins of the laws.They can theorise if they choose, but they if consistent with their wild unproven theory, should only say, its all by chance, and most likely hapened or evolved step by step with each successive law, being selected by a mutational law change, until magically all laws balanced out and made life viable all by chance.It looks like we have a winner.Laws do not evolve !! And did not evolve .

And you, of course, are going to enlighten us?