Well, most hydrogen came from the early stages of the Big Bang (at least the nucleus, a proton, did) through decay of neutrons (ye, we can go back further, but at some point we don't know what happened). Oxygen is primarily formed inside of stars and so did not exist in abundance until the first generation of stars exploded or otherwise distributed what they had produced.
Who or what caused the Big Bang? Can you rule out a Creator simply because his existence is not testable by current scientific methods?
Well, we know that there are very large quantities of water in the various nebula where stars form. Yes, the hydrogen and oxygen come across each other 'randomly', but there is enough of each that this is predictable and gives a lot of water.
How do you know there are very large quantities of water out there when you are so unsure about so many other things? When does science draw the line between what they "know" as compared to what they "believe" to be true at this moment?
Yes, for any liquid there will be such a cycle. There are clouds of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan. They do a very similar convection circle, only for the local liquid on Titan. Not too special. Sorry.
Cause and effect....right? For every effect there has to be a cause. But science cannot even entertain the thought of the very first cause of every process they know, being something they cannot quantify. It doesn't mean that such a cause cannot exist...only that they have no way to demonstrate his existence with their current knowledge. Isn't that true?
We know there was liquid watr on Mars: we can see the erosion canals. We know there is water (ice) on the moon: we can detet it spectrographically. But we do NOT know the composition of any planet outside of our solar system. We know there is water in the nebula, so we strongly suspect that there are many planets with water (it is certainly around), but that isn't known yet (we simply don't have the resolution to tell for planets around other stars).
Again, science seems to speak so confidently about things they cannot possibly know for sure. It is what they suspect to be correct until new evidence emerges to correct a wrong assumption. It's not terribly exact, is it?
And again, of the thousands of other planets we have found over the last decade or two, we have details about NONE of them. They are simply too far to get such details with the instruments we currently have. So detecting microbial life (which would be the most common sort) is simplyimpossible at this time.
And looking for microbial life is solely dependent on the assumption that life evolved on earth that way. But science does not know for sure that macro-evolution ever happened, taking microscopic organisms and assuming that all life (including the extinct, gigantic creatures of the past) evolved from them, given enough time....but we know they have no way to know for sure. They base their findings on what they 'believe' to have taken place in the past, based on what they can test and interpret in the present. It's mostly based on assumption, not facts.
If some other conditions prevailed on Earth, life would not have formed here. But given the number of other planets, it almost certainly has formed somewhere else. No, we don't know that for certain right now. But it is only in the last couple of decades that we even knoew there are planets around other stars.
Why was Earth the only planet in our solar system where life is not only found, but is seen in staggering variety and abundance? Is it just an accident that this is the "Goldilocks" planet?
When Genesis was written, no one knew about our place in the solar system or our place even in our own galaxy....yet there is so much in Genesis that only someone from outside of earth could know. The preparation of the planet itself from a state that was completely inhospitable to life, to the stages and order in which living things appeared. There was no way for the writer of Genesis to know these things.
I think it is nonsense to speak of causes of the fundamental physical laws. Any explanation would require some deeper physical law.
Well, I'd be surprised if you thought otherwise. You have a whole raft of knowledge accumulated in a system that has successfully eliminated all need for a Creator. The laws that govern everything just "are"....they need no author. Science seems to take so much for granted.
For every question I have....there are answers in the Bible. But science, having come to a vast amount of accumulated knowledge in relatively recent times, still grapples with the most fundamental question of all....where did life come from? I can confidently answer that question and all the other questions that naturally follow. In my conversations with evolutionists, it is clear that this question is swept under the carpet as if it isn't even important. To me, it is the most important question of all.
Religion, particularly YEC has done a lot of damage to the credibility of the creation account, but interestingly, the Bible itself does not promote YEC.
I can happily accept both the Bible and what science can actually prove. I don't have to accept either one or the other....I can comfortably accept both. I see the Creator as the one who is responsible for all that science studies.
