The 1st type of molecule ever formed in the universe found confirming more evidence for the Big Bang

[Strathos]

An interesting thing about the Big Bang: Because of the humongous amount of energy needed to achieve it, the intense heat generated by it would have made everything absolutely sterile for trillions of miles around it. This would have formed a totally sterile universe with not even the smallest living cell! That is something that science can't satisfactorily answer.

So, if a living cell appeared on a sterile earth that had cooled, where did it come from?

Life isn't known to have appeared on earth until hundreds of millions of years after its formation. Earth itself didn't exist until over 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

Also, if there was no big bang, and the universe was always there, then the sun and stars would have burned out long ago, according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which says that energy degrades over time. So the universe had to start at a point in time. So, if it started with the Big Bang, and science knows that such a cataclysmic explosion cannot happen spontaneously, who or what caused it? I don't think that science can answer that either.

You would be correct here, at least the answer has yet to be discovered.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Life isn't known to have appeared on earth until hundreds of millions of years after its formation. Earth itself didn't exist until over 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

I understand that, but where would the life come from if the whole universe was totally sterile of life because of the extreme heat caused by the Big Bang? It would have made no difference if the universe was sterile for 9 billion years, because anything living still would not have appeared, unless it came from somewhere outside of our universe.

If there was another universe something that had life in it, and a single cell detached itself somehow and floated across space for trillions of years (and that would have to be at the speed of light) and somehow landed on earth, among with quadrillions of stars and trillions of galaxies in our universe, what would be the odds of that?
1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000? And that might be a very conservative estimate!

 

[Strathos]

I understand that, but where would the life come from if the whole universe was totally sterile of life because of the extreme heat caused by the Big Bang? It would have made no difference if the universe was sterile for 9 billion years, because anything living still would not have appeared, unless it came from somewhere outside of our universe.

Well as the universe expanded, it cooled down, a lot.

The exact mechanisms of abiogenesis aren't know, but I think God had it all planned out.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well as the universe expanded, it cooled down, a lot.

The exact mechanisms of abiogenesis aren't know, but I think God had it all planned out.

The gap theory sounds logical, because in Genesis 1 it says that the earth was without form and void. Then the creation process started at the command of God. We don't know if the rest of the universe is sterile or not. If it is, then no one outside of Earth will never see Voyager 1 or play the golden record. So, life came from the living God. He is the source of all life.

But science does not want the divine to get any sort of foothold, so they will come up with any theory to try and keep God out of things.

 

[Strathos]

The gap theory sounds logical, because in Genesis 1 it says that the earth was without form and void. Then the creation process started at the command of God. We don't know if the rest of the universe is sterile or not. If it is, then no one outside of Earth will never see Voyager 1 or play the golden record. So, life came from the living God. He is the source of all life.

But science does not want the divine to get any sort of foothold, so they will come up with any theory to try and keep God out of things.

Science isn't a person with an opinion or a bias. You can certainly make that kind of claim about individual scientists, but not 'science' as a whole.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Science isn't a person with an opinion or a bias. You can certainly make that kind of claim about individual scientists, but not 'science' as a whole.

It is a fact that the scientists who made the most important scientific discoveries in the 18th and 19th Century such as Pasteur, Newton, and Faraday, were believers in God whose intentions were to discover more about God's creation.

Sagan (the pagan) and Richard Dawkins, our modern celebrated scientists are atheists who have not made any really important discoveries except coming up with theories that mainly belong to science fiction!

 

[Strathos]

It is a fact that the scientists who made the most important scientific discoveries in the 18th and 19th Century such as Pasteur, Newton, and Faraday, were believers in God whose intentions were to discover more about God's creation.

Sagan (the pagan) and Richard Dawkins, our modern celebrated scientists are atheists who have not made any really important discoveries except coming up with theories that mainly belong to science fiction!

I don't believe we are addressing the same points here. Scientists are constantly in competition with each other. Ideally, their religious beliefs or lack thereof should not impact their work. But humans are flawed and have biases. That's why the scientific method involves repeated experimentation, peer review, and submitting every theory to rigorous testing. So no individual person's bias can ultimately prevail over the scientific consensus.