To scientists and atheists and all those who believe in Evolution.

With all the evidences available and more being discovered, with the innumerable fossils of extinct creatures etc etc, why is EVOLUTION still called a theory?
And more importantly, why do some people believe that all the complexities of living things today were once a single amoebic cell?
What started this cell?

As for the big bang theory, what started the gas bubble that later developed to the big gas bubble that then exploded?

It's not just a theory, it is a myth.

Evolution just like Heliocentricity (That the earth moves round the sun) are scientific theories because they have been put through rigorous testing and have always come up to be true. Scientific theories are similiar to what non scientists call "Laws" that is why in scientific circles, it is referred to as the 'Law of Evolution" etc. But scientists need to know every single detail before they tell the general public that something is a law. On that note, till we confirm every existing fossil or find every missing transitional specie, we will still refer to Evolution as a theory. Not because it is not true (modern biology, geology, etc are based on evolution and are doing very well by applying the theory), but because we don't want to stop looking for possible errors in them. The same for Heliocentricity, we know from experiments and observations that the earth goes round the sun, but till we know every detail about the sun or verify if the earth is actually moving around the sun or a point close to the centre of the sun, it will still be referred to as a theory. In both cases, the two theories are true, scientists just want to wait a while longer before telling the public that they are now laws.


And about the first cell, it was simply a combination of the six basic elements that make up life (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Potassium and Sodium) to form a self replicating molecule. This is a process that happens naturally in the universe, but takes millions to billions of years to form. Once it forms, it takes few million years to develop into biological cells and from there through reproduction to advance lifeforms.


And about the big bang, quantum mechanics (the study of very tiny sub atomic particles) indicate that what we perceive as 'nothing' or a 'vacuum' is actually a combination of energy and dark energy cancelling out their effects. This means that 'nothing' is very unstable with matter appearing and disappearing constantly at a sub atomic level. So for the big bang, an incident like that occuring with the right amount of dark energy (which has anti gravitational properties) slightly more than normal energy would cause a sudden explosion like the one that began our universe. In our case the explosion is still in process, and when it reaches its climax the dark energy present in our universe would cancel out the normal energy thereby collapsing our universe into a quantum singularity.


To better understand it, imagine every star in our universe as a quark (smaller that electrons or neutrons or protons) and our universe as a giant nuclear bomb that is still expanding after an explosion. With time the expansion will stop and the particles would come back together on a subatomic scale.

oneda:
To scientists and atheists and all those who believe in Evolution.

With all the evidences available and more being discovered, with the innumerable fossils of extinct creatures etc etc, why is EVOLUTION still called a theory?
And more importantly, why do some people believe that all the complexities of living things today were once a single amoebic cell?
What started this cell?

As for the big bang theory, what started the gas bubble that later developed to the big gas bubble that then exploded?

Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the big bang theory.

I had a biology professor in undergrad who used to call the big bang theory "hand waving."

He was the resident evolutionist at the university then. Still is.

Ambrogio:
Evolution just like Heliocentricity (That the earth moves round the sun) are scientific theories because they have been put through rigorous testing and have always come up to be true. Scientific theories are similiar to what non scientists call "Laws" that is why in scientific circles, it is referred to as the 'Law of Evolution" etc. But scientists need to know every single detail before they tell the general public that something is a law. On that note, till we confirm every existing fossil or find every missing transitional specie, we will still refer to Evolution as a theory. Not because it is not true (modern biology, geology, etc are based on evolution and are doing very well by applying the theory), but because we don't want to stop looking for possible errors in them. The same for Heliocentricity, we know from experiments and observations that the earth goes round the sun, but till we know every detail about the sun or verify if the earth is actually moving around the sun or a point close to the centre of the sun, it will still be referred to as a theory. In both cases, the two theories are true, scientists just want to wait a while longer before telling the public that they are now laws.
And about the first cell, it was simply a combination of the six basic elements that make up life (Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Potassium and Sodium) to form a self replicating molecule. This is a process that happens naturally in the universe, but takes millions to billions of years to form. Once it forms, it takes few million years to develop into biological cells and from there through reproduction to advance lifeforms.
And about the big bang, quantum mechanics (the study of very tiny sub atomic particles) indicate that what we perceive as 'nothing' or a 'vacuum' is actually a combination of energy and dark energy cancelling out their effects. This means that 'nothing' is very unstable with matter appearing and disappearing constantly at a sub atomic level. So for the big bang, an incident like that occuring with the right amount of dark energy (which has anti gravitational properties) slightly more than normal energy would cause a sudden explosion like the one that began our universe. In our case the explosion is still in process, and when it reaches its climax the dark energy present in our universe would cancel out the normal energy thereby collapsing our universe into a quantum singularity.
To better understand it, imagine every star in our universe as a quark (smaller that electrons or neutrons or protons) and our universe as a giant nuclear bomb that is still expanding after an explosion. With time the expansion will stop and the particles would come back together on a subatomic scale.

It therefore follows that Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Potassium and Sodium are the original self existing elements from which other life forms take their origin. They are the god-elements from whence we and other life forms came. These have no origin. Yes or No?

oneda:


It therefore follows that Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Potassium and Sodium are the original self existing elements from which other life forms take their origin. They are the god-elements from whence we and other life forms came. These have no origin. Yes or No?

If you feel the need to refer to them as 'God particles', it's your choice. But they are simply byproducts of the big bang. They like every other element that occurs naturally are a collection of subatomic particles condenced to the point of atoms. Their origin lies in the cosmic soup that existed after the big bang.

What sets them apart is their crucial role in the operation of life as we know it on earth. It is thought that in certain sections of the universe life could be based on other similar atoms to carbon like sulphur. In those places, a different combination of elements would be needed to sustain their 'life' and they may even breathe Nitrogen.