Hi Sidewalk, welcome to evcforum.
sidewalk writes:
Based on Evolutionary theory (again, my painfully limited understanding), I believe everything (life) all starts with the Big Bang theory, a single particle expanding or something like that. Where did this original particle come from? I don't know exactly what Evolutionary theory dictates as being the first of any sort of object, minute dust speck, etc, but it came from somewhere, right? How did it get there?
The sequence, as Paulk mentioned, is more like: cosmogenesis -> stellar genesis and nucleosynthesis -> solar system and planetary formation (specifically Earth) -> abiogenesis. At this point HERE there be life. From here forward, evolution takes over. So, what happened before life was chemistry, and before that nucleosynthesis/physics, and before that was the Big Bang. And before THAT was a lot of theory and speculation and abstruse mathematical formulae
about which I have no clue. I'll be happy to pick things up for you from the abiogensis point forward, but not backward - this is where the Theory of Evolution comes in. It isn't intended to be a Theory of Everything. After all, it's quite possible to discuss the rise of the diversity of life without having to deal with the history of the universe back to the Big Bang.
Just one further point:
sidewalk further writes:
...it seems that both dedicated God followers and strict Science types must agree that based on either of their theories, something which we cannot understand came beforehand.
I would disagree with this statement. I don't think either side in the debate would concur here. Philosophically, theists claim that God came "before" - was eternal, in essence. They may not understand everything there is to know about God, but they do claim knowledge that He exists. Philosophical naturalists, on the other hand, claim that there is NOTHING that human intellect cannot ultimately understand, even if we don't understand it TODAY. So they would also reject the idea of the unknowable. And scientists - methodological naturalists - operate under the assumption that if something exists in nature, we will ultimately be able to understand it. In some sense this is sort of begging the question as to whether there is anything
beyond nature, but science makes no call or claim one way or the other. "If it's natural, we can understand it. If it's supernatural, we can't, but it is unnecessary to postulate it." I'd say most scientists would consider the universe - and by extension its beginning - to be a wholly natural place.
(Edited to fix !@#%%^#$ ubb code.)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-14-2003]