the source of life

Why would the Big Bang (proposed by a Roman Catholic priest and physicist), abiogenesis and evolution of biological life (of which there are many adherants of theistic evolution) go against the concept of a divine creator and a divine creation? Many scientists have no problem marrying the two ideas of celestial, chemical, geological and biological evolution with the concept of God and divine creation.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Cardiac cells (as well as many other body cells) can be kept alive nearly indefinately (at least to the end of there natural cell cycle unless they can be coaxed to reproduce), given the right chemical nutrition to sustain its life.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Hi Buzz,Just to clarify a couple of things. BTW I am not a scientist but do have a basic understanding and education in science, so take the following as my humble opinion on your "claims": These are typical layman assumptions of scientific terms and concepts which you (and many other layman) do not truely understand. We first need to define terms such as "creation", "energy" and "eternal". If you can define these terms first, than (yes I am a layman too, but a somewhat educated layman though in no way an expert like cavediver and others) we can attempt to show you to how you are butchering these scientific concepts i.e. the Laws of Thermodynamics. This may or may not be true but has not been scientifically confirmed yet. Again it depends on how you are defining "energy" and how are you defining "eternal". As confirmed by Einstein energy and matter are two forms of the same substance and are intrigately linked to spacetime itself. So the real question is, is the universe itself eternal or not. Is the Big Bang the beginning of spacetime and matter/energy or is it part of a larger multidimensional brane/hyperspace? These are pretty heavy questions that are still trying to be answered by scientists.The current cosmological model (confirmed through observation, experimentation and deduction) stipulates that time began at the beginning of the "Big Bang" and thus time itself is not eternal. Therefore if time is not eternal (time began) than we can logically deduce that energy itself is not eternal either. However, it makes no sense to ask what occured before time began. However,
another working hypothesis is that the current Big Bang is one event of a continual succession of Big Bangs and thus is not the beginning of time. Therefore my understanding is that the jury is still out on the question of whether time as well as energy is "eternal". Again the question of whether time/energy/space/matter i.e. the universe is eternal or not, is more convaluted and deeper than the pat layman answer you provided. See above. Again we have to defined terms. How are you defining life? Is a virus alive? How about protiens? How about DNA, is it alive? How about organic compounds and molecules? What is "alive"?And what do you mean by "eternal source"? Do you mean a supernatural deity (existing outside the universe)? Or a natural source (part of the universe) of energy? Again, throwing around undefined, ambiguous and relative terms. What do you considere complex? Is DNA considered complex? How about an atom? How about a proton, is it complex? How about photons? Gluons? How about strings (if they exist), are they complex? The term "complex" like beauty is relative to the observer and is an anthropomorphic term of human origin and understanding. Does a rock require a designer? Do crystals require a designer? And who or what is this designer? How can we determine what the characteristics of a devine designer is by looking at a pile of cow manure or by looking at a piece of limestone? No one would disagree with this though you seem to not quite understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothsis is more like a "working" explanation to a natural phenomena whereas a theory is an explanation/model that has been confirmed by evidence and validated through peer review. Therefore if enough corroborating evidence and observation supports a hypothesis to confirm it as being a reasonable model, by the mass of subject matter experts in that field, of a natural phenomena than it becomes a theory. There is some evidence that supports some of the historical events in the Bible as having actually occurred just as there is some evidence that some of the historical events in the Koran and other religous books actually occurred. However, this is a far cry from affirming that the Bible was written by some supernatural entity and that all and/or any of the supernatural events in the Bible actually occured. Unknowns are not "accepted" in science. If it is unknown it is unknown until science can make it known. Scientific hypothesis and theories attempt to explain the previously unknown causes of known phenomena. That is mission statement of what science is all about i.e. making the unknown, known!Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

You are not understanding what I am saying. A scientific theory explains what are the discovered and known causes of a phenomena. The unknown, undiscovered part(s) are left for future scientific theories to explain. Thus the BB theory only explains that which we currently understand and know, not that which we don't know or yet understand (though a theory can always be expounded, modified and refined with future evidence and observational/experimentation data).The same is true with biogenesis though biogenesis does not yet have an all-encompassing theory that cosmogenesis does i.e. the Big Bang Theory. Instead there are several competing and noncompeting hypotheses of abiogenesis which are still collecting data and evidence to confirm there validity. The historical reliability of the historical, non-supernatural events of the Bible though should theoretically be able to be falsified by historical & scientific analysis (though there is lost historical evidence that we will never be able to recover thus making this full analysis very difficult if not downright impossible). However, Christians (as well as adherents of other religions) require that there holy book to be not only historically accurate but divinely inspired as well. The problem is that the supernatural (both events in the Bible as well as its divine authorship) by its very nature is unfalsifiable and thus by its very definition unscientific (not able to be confirmed/not confirmed by science) thus making your claim a moot point. Therefore, a leap of faith has to be made to attribute the Bible's authorship to divine inspiration as well as accepting the "miracles" in the Bible to both be what truelly occured and supernatural in origin. However, the first (Biblical record as inspired by God) requires a leap of faith and the second (science) does not (it can be deduced through experimentation and observation). Conventional science makes no claim to the ultimate source of energy, design, and life. This is more of a philosophical/metaphysical/religious claim.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Yes and no. The BB theory covers mainly what happens after the point of singularity (t=0) not where this singularity itself came from (cosmogenesis). My understanding of current cosmology is that one itteration of cosmogenesis interpolates that t=0 preceded the BB however there are other competing hypothesis i.e. the multi-world hypothesis that states that our current universe is one "bubble" amongst many other universes in a massive multiverse. Space and time are intrigately linked so that when our universe emerged from singularity that spacetime itself was birthed from this singularity. What I am not sure is, if theoretical physicists infer that if this multi-world cosmogenesis hypothesis is true that spacetime resets to 0 in our current universe or that it extends backwards before this single point of singularity. This is where my layman knowledge is limited and possible Cavediver or someone else more knowledgable in the subject can expound. Yes, but like I said earlier theories are not truley all-inclusive they only explain the cause of phenomena that are discovered and deductively/inductively known. The T=0 part of cosmogenesis like biogenesis is still in the grey are of unverified hypothesis. Some of this is still unknown , some is known but not adequately verified and some is known and verifiable (and falsifiable). As to where energy came from, you need to clarify what type of energy (normal energy, dark energy, etc), how much energy (all the energy in the universe?). When you say where did the energy come from, in essense I am interpreting this as where did the universe come from, since space, time, energy and matter are all integrately linked and you can't ask where one comes from without implying where the others come from as well. This is what happens when uninformed (notice I did not say unintelligent as we all are uninformed in any matter of things) people make statements which they do not have a clue of what they are asking. BTW I am guilty of this as well, just ask Cavediver
What do you mean by "hidden"? And what do you mean by "negative energy" and "vacuum"? It seems like you are talking about dark energy which is currently causing the universe to accelerate in its expansion. Is that what you are talking about? The expansion of the universe when? During the initial inflation phase of expansion during the BB or the accleration of the expansion of the universe now? Modern cosmology explains both, these are not unknowns. We have an idea of what the dark energy that is causing this accelerated expansion is. We are just figuring out ways of verifying the validity of these ideas.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan