first genetic material

Heinlein was a sick puppy, but you quote him like he was Biblical scripture.

If you can't see that creationists lie, start a new thread by that title and we'll see what we can come up with. It would be off-topic here.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Start a new thread if you want to debate this.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I think he's trying to refer to the oxygen-burning process and the silicon burning process: the last two stages of nucleosynthesis. Admittedly he's not doing so very accurately.

Thank you....

I noticed you chose not deal with "few minutes" and "is believed to be" in your quote explaining the Big Bang. I don't accept the time frame - could have been 15.756489347 seconds or a billions years - face it...they don't know. They are not sure that this process produced the elements by their own admission - "is believed to be"The simple question "Where did that come from?" will take you back far enough into the theory that you will have to say "I don't know how that happened or where it originated". EVs have to believe it was just there and IDs believe it was spoken into existence from nothing. Either way... you don't know."Evidence" is tainted by human bias and methods based on assumptions. Each side picks and chooses evidence that supports their position and if it doesn't then it is considered erroneous or irrevelant.IDs want to prove creation; Humanists want to prove evolution.I will go back and read the links out of respect for the time you have spent with me in discussion. I can understand your frustration, but the use of "street language" is not necessary and beneath a person of your intellect.

The reason being that those are layman terms. We're not supposed to get hung up on key words like that from a wiki link.The proper method of calculating what happened seconds after T=O is beyond my knowledge and I would assume beyond yours as well. So I figured the wiki links were easier for you to read and for me to answer from. "They" do, they understand it very well. Physicist have no need to explain it to someone like you or I who wouldn't "get it" to begin with, thus layman books are produced to explain it in easier terms. But, like you have done, people who lack even basic physics(not thet I think you do) will get confused by what they read in layman books and get hung up on terms like "believed to be".This is the down side of these books. It also should be above use to dismiss the work done by highly intelligent people working very hard in their respective fields, who then take the time out to write these books to help those with a lesser understanding. I would say just read it, try to understand it, ask as many questions as possible, but under no circumstance try to dismiss any of it, you(and I) lack the knowledge to be able to do that.I personally know very little about String Theory. I have read 2 books on it specifically and still know very little. How would it look if someone on this site who DID understand it very well was explaining it to me and I told them "I don't believe you"? It would be well within that persons right to tell me to piss off and don't come to them with questions anymore, don't you think? SO my job as a layman is to listen and try to learn, not reject the information and question the credibility of science/scientist. That is not their own admission, that was a wiki link.We have a few resident physicist here on this site, you can ask them if they "believe" it happened or if they "know" it happened. However, what they'll explain to you and the mathematics they'll use to explain it will be beyond your ability to understand so it makes no sense to delve that deep. But, by all means delve.Propose a new thread and simply ask how do cosmologist know that hydrogen was produced at the big bang?And also ask how do we know that the elements originate in the core of a sun?Trust me you will have no shortage of people willing to help you. This is too generalized. Where did what specifically come from? Everything after the Big Bang is understood how it originates, before that is complicated, however, there are many threads on this site dedicated to explaining just that. By EV's do you mean evolutionist? Irrelevant. Evolution and cosmology are worlds apart. A biologist weighing in on matters dealing with cosmology, unless he actually studied the subject, is a layman like you or I.Don't get used to throwing out those creationist labels like "evolutionist". Our opinions don't dictate what occurs in nature.Evolution happens whether you are an "evolutionist" or a "creationist". It's a natural process of adaptation, it's biological, it occurs at the genetic level, whether people accept it or not. It's like gravity. It happens whether you believe the theory that explains it or not. First, what do you mean by "humanist"?The only thing that science is doing is explaining what is observed. In the theory of evolution there is an explanation for the observed phenomenon. Now, whether the theory fully explains it, partially explains it, or doesn't explain it at all, is secondary to the observed phenomenon.IF the theory of evolution is wrong then scientist will eventually figure that out by doing science and propose a *new* theory of evolution to explain it better. The same goes for gravity for example. IF the theory of gravity is wrong then scientist will eventually figure that out by doing science and propose a *new* theory of gravity to explain it better. But, neither gravity or evolution stop happening just because humans can't fully explain how it happens. They're just words but if they bother you then I apologies and won't use them when repling to you.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

They are not just words. You have wide variety of words at your disposal and you choose the one that best expresses your emotion at the moment. They give insight to who you are...Regards...

They are just words, used to express emotion and whatever else I'd like it to express.If you want an insight into who I am you won't get it from me using the word "fuck". I hope you don't think I'm that superficial to be defined by certain words?I'm from the streets. I was alone at a young age. I talk like that in normal conversation. I hang out with people who do the same. All of which are highly intelligent people and that part of their vocabuary says nothing about who they are.If I offended you then AGAIN I'm sorry. If you want to drag it out further then I promise I'll eventually offend you again, OR, we could just stick to the thread and the topic.Your call.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Like I said... it gives insight. Not really offended - more disappointed...I am reading through the links this afternoon, and will need alot of time to absorb all the information.However, I am interested by this statement found on Wiki dealing with the Big Bang... "At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and anti-leptonsof the order of 1 part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe."[27]Unknown Reaction?? It sounds as if this unknown reaction has to take place for all this to work... or is this layman's terms as well?I'll keep reading...

As a cosmologist, you may be surprised to learn that I *DO* know. And I find it exceptionally insulting that someone with very little knowledge of this subject would claim suffcient expertise to announce what *I* happen to know or not know. You may want to curtail your arrogance before people start to see it as one of your defining characteristics...This is way off topic for this thread, but surfice it to say that we have a century of theory, predictions, observations, and confirmations, not to mention tens of thousands of mathematical and cosmological experts and hundreds of thousands of scientific papers, plus billions of dollars of hardware to get to where we are now. And where we are now is not "could have been 15.756489347 seconds or a billions years - face it...they don't know."Don't shout your ignorance, it may be catching...

You really should stay on topic.But since you asked about baryogenesis, I need to ask if you think you would understand the answer if it was given to you. Here is a small test. It is from Wikipedia so it shouldn't be too hard. Do you understand these equations? SourceShall I continue? The point is you are questioning things you have no clue about. Your incredulity has nothing to do with the legitimacy of these scientific concepts. Just because you don't understand doesn't make it not soEdited by Theodoric, : Added source

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Something must have produced an excess of matter over anti-matter, because this excess exists.But no-one knows for certain what. As a result, as invariably happens in such cases, scientists say: "We don't know. So let's try to figure it out"; and creationists say: "We don't know. Therefore we do know: it was caused by God doing magic to make the universe in an act of fiat creation 6000 years ago. Oh, and as a corollary all the things that scientists know for certain must be wrong."You will notice that only one of these reactions is logical. You may also consider that, given scientists' track record of finding things out, and creationists' track record of being wrong about everything, the smart money would be on the scientists.

The only reason I don't accept it is that I have never heard of scientist explaining anything in the context of "a few minutes". I was looking for a more precise measure.Consider this quote found on Wiki - Big BangIn 1931 Lematre went further and suggested that the evident expansion in forward time required that the universe contracted backwards in time, and would continue to do so until it could contract no further, bringing all the mass of the universe into a single point, a "primeval atom", at a point in time before which time and space did not exist. As such, at this point, the fabric of time and space had not yet come into existence.[10]What is the origin of the primeval atom?

What was that something? Why not a being doing magic that exists outside of time and space, as absurd as it sounds. I mean...

quote:

---

Something must have produced an excess of matter over anti-matter, because this excess exists.

---

does not convince me either.