The problem with evolutionist

Energy; the theory suggests that it hadn't condensed into matter at that point.

Why would that be the case? Life on Earth is far younger than the Universe.

 

You fail to heed the evidence that we can observe our surrounding universe and see that that it is expanding outward from a singular point. We dont observe the universe expanding in different directions which would suggest 'multiple big bangs' as you say. We see concentric expansion from a singular point.

 

Nope, sorry. What you're talking about is abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Well, we definitely have fossils that show transitions. What Jay Gould said was this:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology."

And that really isn't a trade secret. Yes, transitional fossils may be rare, but they are not nonexistant. It should be noted that Jay Gould went on to say later in his career:

"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]"

 

So the universe has X amount of energy? and it all converged on one random point in spacetime, blew up, and made 300 zillion stars, and thats it. Beyond that 300 zillion stars, nothingness..... forever....

If we can caculate the expantion of the universe, we must be able to find the center of it. Therefor, we must be somewhat close to the center of everything

 

and if we venture to far from that center point we run into infinite nothingness. Somehow I doubt that is true. If stars exist here, they exist everywhere

 

You fail to understand the concept of infinity as it applies to time or space. For instance, if the universe has no beginning, we lose our place in time because there is no reference point to set our place in time. For this reason the causal chain cannot regress indefinitely. By the same token, if the universe is infinite, they we cease to exist as well as the universe because again there is no beginning or end to give everything else in between its place. It's a heady concept until you start thinking about it. If "where" has no beginning, then there is no set point to define what "where" is for us.

Moreover, your theory isn't even scientific because it's completely ignorant of what we know about the universe by observing it. The universe is an outward expansion of 170 billion galaxies. They are expanding away from an empty void and are expanding into an empty void. If the universe were infinite as you say, then our observations would show galaxies in every direction with no discernable pattern of movement and exist ad infinitum fading only at the far limits of our technology to view them. This isn't the case. Stop watching science fiction and learn how the universe really works.

 

Because you say so? Do you not even see the lapses in your logic?

 

That's what physics suggests; if you think about the thermodynamic laws, it makes sense. There's a fixed amount of energy in the universe; we cannot create or destroy it, only change its form and distribution. The ultimate end of the universe will be a very cold end.

When exists beyond the universe is a fundamentally unanswerable question without some unpredictable revolution in our detection methods. But don't confuse that for some black empty space--it wouldn't be empty vacuum, there would simply be nothing at all, no space, no time, no energy, nothing.

Not even slightly true. If you are sitting in the stands at a race track, can you still observe who is in front, and which car is closest to the edge of the track? Can you observe that they are all driving around a center point in the track? You don't need to be at the center of something to measure movement of other bodies within a system, nor do you need to be in the center to find the center.

 

You mean spacetime? Space and time are 1 thing. Ask Einstien.

How can energy have a begining if it can't be created or destroyed?

Our reference point is based on the Earths orbit of the sun. Thats how we keep track. Like the metric system is based on Earths distance from the sun.

Which is why the universe has no center. There is no magic spot from which everything comes from.

That all originated on the fatefull day 14 billion years ago at the magic spot in the center of the universe

I rather not believe in the magic center point, and the fate filled day that started it all 14 billion years ago. Imagine, threw infinite nothingness fate choose spot X to poof a universe into existance.

 

which of the 250 or so evolution theories from around the world is your truth?

 

"Center" is not synonymous with "origin". If I take a rubber ball and plot the center of it, that does not mean I think the rubber ball originated from that center point.

 

I'd like to hear you name even 5 evolutionary theories. AFAIK, there's only been a handful, and none of them are common past the 19th century. The modern synthesis explains the evidence extremely well.

 

Kind of, there are mathematical models that combine space and time into one continuum for simplification. But Einstein believed that space was third dimensional and time was a fourth dimension.

 

There aren't 250 evolutionary theories

 

Ok.... POOF, X amount of matter appears at location Y, the point of origin/center of the universe, then blows up and makes everything. But go to far from that point and it's nothingness forever.

 

Physicists want a particle to explain it or it doesn't exist.

 

Well, volume and location are kind of meaningless without the universe. Space is itself a consequence of the universe, and wouldn't exist outside of that context. In other words, the energy that would partially condense into matter occurred, period; notions like 'amounts' and 'space' are concepts that only make sense after that.

"Blow up" isn't the right way to describe it either, at least according to the prevailing theory today. They probably should have called it the "Big Expansion" theory, since 'big bang' kind of makes people assume it was an explosion originating from one point.

I would also criticize the description of nothingness, since nothingness would not extend anywhere. It would be the razor-thin termination line between where things exist and where there is no existence. Extending on forever is a consequence of space (and time)--in true nothingness, there would be no space or time, and therefore no extension. Everything would just end, and there wouldn't be anything past that point.

 

Even if we are too assume the anti-evolution arguments are true (which requires putting aside empirical evidence in favor of sketchy statistical models), where did God come from?

Personally I have an easier time believing the conditions for life came about on at least one planet than to assume this never happened but somehow a sentient superbeing more complex than anything imaginable popped up out of nowhere.

 

You have no proof, if you do cite it please

 

Then why would the call it a trade secret? you are hardly in the field. Gould knows more of the unanswered questions than you sir.

 

Appearently, X amount of energy some how poofed into existance at location Y, became matter, and exploaded making everything we see today. Before that fatefull day 14 billion years ago, there was nothing... nowhere.... infinite void. But location Y just happened to get luckey and energy apeared there.

I think you should just say POOF'd then. It's like magic. This one magic location (location Y) in an infinate void just happened to POOF energy into it and then the "big expansion" happened.

Thats where you fall off the edge of the universe. I love it.

 

Volume and location are also meaningless when it comes to the sigularity that expands into the big bang.

I tend to think that nothing and something are the same thing...sounds nuts don't it?

You can't take something from nothing...and you can't turn something into nothing. Unless....something and nothing are the same thing.

 

As a Deist, it is my belief that god, or a spiritual being created the natural laws necessary for energy, life, evolution, etc. However, the natural laws that he/she/it created have taken over his duties.

 

Did you even read the next quote? Regardless of him flat out saying that transitional fossils exist, his first quote never said that no such transitional fossils existed.

 

Evolution is a lot like democracy. They both have their flaws, but they are better than any of their competitors. Intelligent design is creationism at one remove: just as you can't prove God exists or doesn't exist, you can't prove intelligent interference in the natural development of Earth's environment and species.
Occam's Razor should still be your measure of what to teach: if you are faced with a simple explanation versus a complicated explanation you will have extreme difficulty proving or disproving, choose the simple explanation.