The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

The universe has always existed.

Don't agree?

Show me a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

But the It would have dissipated due to the 2nd law.
Other things also prove that false.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The universe has always existed.

Don't agree?

Show me a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

Prior to the Big Bang (if the word prior can be used). In other words, there was a beginning.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prior to the Big Bang (if the word prior can be used). In other words, there was a beginning.

So what caused it to to happen?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So what caused it to to happen?

Unknown.

 

[Light of the Seven]

Well hi there! I don't really understand what you're saying in this post, but I think I gleaned that you seem to believe Earth is about 6000 years old? A very simple Google search of "age of earth" would show that the Earth is actually 4.54 billion years old actually! Pretty cool, huh! And if you just simply look at the sources for this information (you don't even have to click on the links), you'll see NatGeo, Space.com, and United States Geologic Survey. Now I would argue these are reputable, science-based, fact-checked, empirically-validated sources! Hope this helps in your understanding of scientific concepts!

 

[gnostic]

We all make choices of one sort or another

When it come to political, social, religious or spiritual circumstances, then yes that's true.

But when it come to Natural Sciences, then it all come to the empirical evidence & repeatable experiments, and the verifiable data that are acquired from those evidence & experiments.

It is all the evidence & test results from experiments, and the data that determine what is or isn't "science".

No science are determined by political agenda, popular opinions, personal beliefs (especially religious or spiritual beliefs)...not even by philosophies.

As creation and Intelligent Design are not science, these shouldn't be taught as science, not at public schools or at universities.

If you want to learn either ID or creation, then do subjects or courses on Theology, religious studies or do Sunday schools.

 

[gnostic]

We all make choices of one sort or another

When it come to political, social, religious or spiritual circumstances, then yes that's true.

But when it come to Natural Sciences, then it all come to the empirical evidence & repeatable experiments, and the verifiable data that are acquired from those evidence & experiments.

It is all the evidence & test results from experiments, and the data that determine what is or isn't "science".

No science are determined by political agenda, popular opinions, personal beliefs (especially religious or spiritual beliefs)...not even by philosophies.

As creation and Intelligent Design are not science, these shouldn't be taught as science, not at public schools or at universities.

If you want to learn either ID or creation, then do subjects or courses on Theology, religious studies or do Sunday schools.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When it come to political, social, religious or spiritual circumstances, then yes that's true.

But when it come to Natural Sciences, then it all come to the empirical evidence & repeatable experiments, and the verifiable data that are acquired from those evidence & experiments.

It is all the evidence & test results from experiments, and the data that determine what is or isn't "science".

No science are determined by political agenda, popular opinions, personal beliefs (especially religious or spiritual beliefs)...not even by philosophies.

As creation and Intelligent Design are not science, these shouldn't be taught as science, not at public schools or at universities.

If you want to learn either ID or creation, then do subjects or courses on Theology, religious studies or do Sunday schools.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

 

[YoursTrue]

When it come to political, social, religious or spiritual circumstances, then yes that's true.

But when it come to Natural Sciences, then it all come to the empirical evidence & repeatable experiments, and the verifiable data that are acquired from those evidence & experiments.

It is all the evidence & test results from experiments, and the data that determine what is or isn't "science".

No science are determined by political agenda, popular opinions, personal beliefs (especially religious or spiritual beliefs)...not even by philosophies.

As creation and Intelligent Design are not science, these shouldn't be taught as science, not at public schools or at universities.

If you want to learn either ID or creation, then do subjects or courses on Theology, religious studies or do Sunday schools.

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The presence of life is enough to convince me now that there is a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible is not a scientific textbook. The presence of life is enough to convince me now that there is a creator.

Why? That sounds irrational.

 

[gnostic]

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

I still see that you repeating the same stupid question.

As I have told before, the word "creature" only means animals, NOT plants, fungi, protists, bacteria & archaea.

We don't know what the first animals, were, but the earliest animals were invertebrates that existed as early as the Ediacaran period, such as the more primitive forms of sponges.

There are evidence of much older and more primitive families of Bacteria are found in fossilised stromatolites, particularly those found in several locations in Western Australia (particularly at the Pilbara Craton).

Sources:

• Earliest signs of life on land preserved in ca. 3.5 Ga hot spring deposits
• Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia
• Oldest evidence of life on land found in 3.48-billion-year-old Australian rocks

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I still see that you repeating the same stupid question.

As I have told before, the word "creature" only means animals, NOT plants, fungi, protists, bacteria & archaea.

We don't know what the first animals, were, but the earliest animals were invertebrates that existed as early as the Ediacaran period, such as the more primitive forms of sponges.

There are evidence of much older and more primitive families of Bacteria are found in fossilised stromatolites, particularly those found in several locations in Western Australia (particularly at the Pilbara Craton).

Sources:

• Earliest signs of life on land preserved in ca. 3.5 Ga hot spring deposits
• Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia
• Oldest evidence of life on land found in 3.48-billion-year-old Australian rocks

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Whether animal, plant, fungi, protists, bacteria & archaea.

 

[gnostic]

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Whether animal, plant, fungi, protists, bacteria & archaea.

I have just told you, that creature means animals.

The earliest animals were all marine invertebrates, animals with no vertebral column, but do possess notochord, they would be similar to the modern sponges and modern tunicates, but more primitive species than the modern varieties.

Similar to the tunicate, was a fossil found in Russia, a species called the Burykhia hunti, dated to around 555 million years ago. Another species was found in Namibia, Ausia fenestrata.

All families, genera and species of sponges belonged to the phylum Ponifera.

The Hexactinellid sponges, more commonly known as glass sponges, fossils have been found in several locations and they have been dated as early as 540 million years old. See The unique skeleton of siliceous sponges (Porifera; Hexactinellida and Demospongiae) that evolved first from the Urmetazoa during the Proterozoic: a review.

Sponges could even exist earlier than these fossils. They haven’t been verified yet, but ponifera-like fossils were found in Canada, dated as early as 890 million years; see Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reefs. If that were the case, then these would be the oldest so far, of the earliest animals.

but as I said in my last reply, bacteria have been around longer than any animal, they are found as early as 3.54 billion years ago, found among fossilix stromatolites in Western Australia. I have already sent you a couple of links, which apparently, you have read, @SavedByTheLord .

bacteria are not creatures, they are not animals. But they have around on earth for lot longer than animals and plants.

If you cannot bother to read materials have cited & linked for you, then you cannot blame other members being angry with you for not do a bit of research. Why bother to demand answers when you are narrow-mindednessly don’t want to learn?

You are acting like an internet troll.

please stop asking the same stupid question again and again, because I have already answered them…twice, in less than 24 hours.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have just told you, that creature means animals.

The earliest animals were all marine invertebrates, animals with no vertebral column, but do possess notochord, they would be similar to the modern sponges and modern tunicates, but more primitive species than the modern varieties.

Similar to the tunicate, was a fossil found in Russia, a species called the Burykhia hunti, dated to around 555 million years ago. Another species was found in Namibia, Ausia fenestrata.

All families, genera and species of sponges belonged to the phylum Ponifera.

The Hexactinellid sponges, more commonly known as glass sponges, fossils have been found in several locations and they have been dated as early as 540 million years old. See The unique skeleton of siliceous sponges (Porifera; Hexactinellida and Demospongiae) that evolved first from the Urmetazoa during the Proterozoic: a review.

Sponges could even exist earlier than these fossils. They haven’t been verified yet, but ponifera-like fossils were found in Canada, dated as early as 890 million years; see Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reefs. If that were the case, then these would be the oldest so far, of the earliest animals.

but as I said in my last reply, bacteria have been around longer than any animal, they are found as early as 3.54 billion years ago, found among fossilix stromatolites in Western Australia. I have already sent you a couple of links, which apparently, you have read, @SavedByTheLord .

bacteria are not creatures, they are not animals. But they have around on earth for lot longer than animals and plants.

If you cannot bother to read materials have cited & linked for you, then you cannot blame other members being angry with you for not do a bit of research. Why bother to demand answers when you are narrow-mindednessly don’t want to learn?

You are acting like an internet troll.

please stop asking the same stupid question again and again, because I have already answered them…twice, in less than 24 hours.

I don't think it's a stupid question. And anyway, did animals and plants have separate starts from two sources, if you know what I mean, since you say plants are not creatures and I can understand your thoughts, but the question is now, do animals and plants come from a Common Ancestor?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have just told you, that creature means animals.

The earliest animals were all marine invertebrates, animals with no vertebral column, but do possess notochord, they would be similar to the modern sponges and modern tunicates, but more primitive species than the modern varieties.

Similar to the tunicate, was a fossil found in Russia, a species called the Burykhia hunti, dated to around 555 million years ago. Another species was found in Namibia, Ausia fenestrata.

All families, genera and species of sponges belonged to the phylum Ponifera.

The Hexactinellid sponges, more commonly known as glass sponges, fossils have been found in several locations and they have been dated as early as 540 million years old. See The unique skeleton of siliceous sponges (Porifera; Hexactinellida and Demospongiae) that evolved first from the Urmetazoa during the Proterozoic: a review.

Sponges could even exist earlier than these fossils. They haven’t been verified yet, but ponifera-like fossils were found in Canada, dated as early as 890 million years; see Possible poriferan body fossils in early Neoproterozoic microbial reefs. If that were the case, then these would be the oldest so far, of the earliest animals.

but as I said in my last reply, bacteria have been around longer than any animal, they are found as early as 3.54 billion years ago, found among fossilix stromatolites in Western Australia. I have already sent you a couple of links, which apparently, you have read, @SavedByTheLord .

bacteria are not creatures, they are not animals. But they have around on earth for lot longer than animals and plants.

If you cannot bother to read materials have cited & linked for you, then you cannot blame other members being angry with you for not do a bit of research. Why bother to demand answers when you are narrow-mindednessly don’t want to learn?

You are acting like an internet troll.

please stop asking the same stupid question again and again, because I have already answered them…twice, in less than 24 hours.

Actually if you're going to get into semantics, creature obviously implies someone created it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think it's a stupid question. And anyway, did animals and plants have separate starts from two sources, if you know what I mean, since you say plants are not creatures and I can understand your thoughts, but the question is now, do animals and plants come from a Common Ancestor?

You have to go even further back before we were animals or plants. You would need to go back to the single celled stage of evolution. There is not going to be any meaningful fossils when it comes to that stage of evolution. So for that we have to rely on DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to go even further back before we were animals or plants. You would need to go back to the single celled stage of evolution. There is not going to be any meaningful fossils when it comes to that stage of evolution. So for that we have to rely on DNA.

Could be...

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to go even further back before we were animals or plants. You would need to go back to the single celled stage of evolution. There is not going to be any meaningful fossils when it comes to that stage of evolution. So for that we have to rely on DNA.

Could be...

Why? That sounds irrational.

Not to me...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God, the Almighty, created all things about 6000 years ago.

There is Nothing in Genesis to say that each of the creative days were 1,000 years long.
It does Not state that each creative day was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
Please note that ALL of the creative days are summed up by the single word ' day ' at Genesis 2:4
Jesus spoke of Noah's Day and we know that was Not a 24 hour day, so the word 'day' in scripture has shades of meaning just as in English when we speak of Grandfather's day.

To say that Earth is only 6,000 year old is implying that God is deceitful by making things look older.
God can not lie - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So what caused it to to happen?

According to Psalm 104:30 it was God's spirit that God used to cause material creation to happen.
Please note Isaiah 40:26 because it speaks of God's Power and God's Strength.
So, God's abundant dynamic energy was used in creating both the invisible Heaven and visible material Earth.