I did assume we both knew what the word universe means: the definition includes all matter.

So lets go with if elementary particles have mass and accelerate faster than the speed of light why couldn't they have created enough energy for the big bang?You also have to take into consideration elementary particals aren't matter they are the building blocks to create matter and also possibly energy.So why can't they create energy and matter?I really don't see how this isn't a possibility.

Elementary particles are matter just like any other matter and they are created by energy just like all other matter. They are not eternal and they are pretty easy to make in an accelerator. All mass comes from energy and mass, even man made mass, is easy to make. Elementary particles do not create energy and they already exist as mass. Combined together, they make bigger particles. Some particles are considered "massless" like photons but they transfer energy, not mass.

You can create mass by adding energy but that discussion is beyond this thread.

But my point is just because the universe is full of energy now doesn't mean it was before the big bang,after the big bang then all the enegry began to destoy alot of the elementary particles cause thats the only way they can be destoyed is by energy and the ones that don't get destroyed are fused and become elemental atoms.when it's just floating around in space with nothing to cause it to be destroyed.
Now if you put elementary particals in an elemental enviroment such as stars,earth,quasars yes then they can't be eternal either.Them just floating around in space w/o a supernova,gammaray,magnetic pull from a mass or blackhole elementary particles could be eternal.They are the beginning of matter energy is what can join the elementary particles to form mass.

I just believe science has tunnel vision and trying to find energy before the big bang maybe they should try another route,that's all.Well they have with the srting theory or our universe is a result of another universe,those still don't explain how universes begin.I love astronomy but i can't claim to be a PHD in cosmology or genetics,but i did take volunteer courses and went to seminars on astronomy while i was at FIU for 4 years ,along with present studying and past.I came close to switching majors but i didn't.So it's a little out of my league per se but not totally.It's just a though.Anyways i'm off topic as usual.I'll stop in this thread.

Actually, in a serious discussion of creation, cosmology is one of the most discussed aspects. "Before the big bang" is a mystery that may answer the question with some sort of definity but it is a very hard question to answer.

If the energy that created our universe was just another expansion bubble from a multiverse with infinite expanding bubbles, the notion of divine influence changes.

Evolution may allow mankind to eventually control the stars in ways described in science fiction using hard science. As our science grows and we gain the power to do the unthinkable, we must consider that we have only been using advanced technology for a century. An addition 100,000 years of science may bring abilities we could only attribute to gods now.

How ironic if a passing alien race bred hominids for intelligence.

In my work I have met many scientists and engineers who believe in God and many are also Christians. Not one, in many discussions, has ever indicated any disbelief in the standard theory of evolution. Where God is involved, evolution was just his way of making it happen.

This creationist theory, being presented here, of all creatures existing at the same time and dying off, is just silly and very bad science. Trying to force facts to meet a bad theory doesn't work very well.

Dammit Metal i added things to this post and you have the original,did i mention i'm a slow typer. I do agree with this statement.

Ha ha! That's OK. I'm a very fast typist.

btw i meant gravitational pull not magnetic on mass pulling objects towards it.

Seen this topic and couldn't resist. So I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I used to think about this kind of stuff constantly than I realized that the answer wouldn't change anything about me or how I viewed the world so I pretty much opened up my mind to accept either.

Being an accident or being created by an alien would not make much difference to me, I'm here and I'm going to enjoy myself. The quote "I'd rather be damned for who I am than accepted for what I'm not" kinda dismissed the latent fear the overly religious types like to throw around.

Actually, in a serious discussion of creation, cosmology is one of the most discussed aspects. "Before the big bang" is a mystery that may answer the question with some sort of definity but it is a very hard question to answer.

If the energy that created our universe was just another expansion bubble from a multiverse with infinite expanding bubbles, the notion of divine influence changes.

Evolution may allow mankind to eventually control the stars in ways described in science fiction using hard science. As our science grows and we gain the power to do the unthinkable, we must consider that we have only been using advanced technology for a century. An addition 100,000 years of science may bring abilities we could only attribute to gods now.

How ironic if a passing alien race bred hominids for intelligence.

In my work I have met many scientists and engineers who believe in God and many are also Christians. Not one, in many discussions, has ever indicated any disbelief in the standard theory of evolution. Where God is involved, evolution was just his way of making it happen.

This creationist theory, being presented here, of all creatures existing at the same time and dying off, is just silly and very bad science. Trying to force facts to meet a bad theory doesn't work very well.

Seen this topic and couldn't resist. So I'll throw in my 2 cents.

I used to think about this kind of stuff constantly than I realized that the answer wouldn't change anything about me or how I viewed the world so I pretty much opened up my mind to accept either.

Being an accident or being created by an alien would not make much difference to me, I'm here and I'm going to enjoy myself. The quote "I'd rather be damned for who I am than accepted for what I'm not" kinda dismissed the latent fear the overly religious types like to throw around.

. . . and this is the standard for purely philosophical conversations, but as was explained by metal a few posts ago, that is a useless definition when dealing with actual physics.

Most physicist would define the universe as space time within the bounds of physical law, or something similar. Basically when things get weird enough or do not apply to the normal laws of physics it would not be considered our universe. Most modern physicists call this a pocket, or bubble universe.

This stuff gets deep, and I am not a cosmologist, but am a physicist. I find these conversation intriguing, but remain skeptical of many hypothesis that get called theories and IMHO do not deserve the title theory because they may not have predictive power yet, or may have very large problems that need fixing such as the landscape problem, or the vacuum energy problem.

However, the further we go the more we learn that nature is complex, but understandable.

Evolution however is the topic, and since we cannot assume energy had a beginning, you cannot assume a creator created it all. In fact a more consistent approach is to assume energy has always existed in one form or another. Even without time, there is energy.

The physical properties of the universe share relationships. Just like the weight of a rock in the surf shares a relationship with how far up the beach you find it. The force needed to push the rock relates to its distance up the shore as it relates to its mass. These same relationships are what allow matter to build in complexity.

There is a kind of natural selection of organic molecules which allow more and more complex compounds to be formed by simple processes such as convection and heat. Given time amino acids form, then lipid bi-layers can trap them, and they can then grow in complexity protected from escaping the lipid bi-layer.

This is the basic idea behind one theory of abiogenesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Explained by an award winning biologist, instead of my vague recollections.

Well said, he does not even see the contradictions in his own position.

He states with certainty that which the brightest minds would willingly admit uncertainty.

This is the egoism of creationism.

Welcome to the science threads. Sometimes we have fun and sometimes it's "bowling with rocks".

Whether he exists or not is very relevant to you, even if you prefer to have an agnostic approach. "Enjoying youself" becomes a bit meaningless when you mature over time in the light of the deeper satisfaction you can get from doing good for others (Maslows hierarchy). With the desire to do good comes the heightened conscience of avoiding damaging others, whether you do this from a religious point of view or not. When you realise that you continuously damage others and yourself and can't help it, is when your conscience will turn you to God because we do need help, being a "good person" doesn't actually come naturally. So let's see how you fare from now, I am guessing interesting times ahead for you.

However its worded, matter exists, where did it come from? This is a simple point, no matter what the current definition of "the universe" is. Where did the forces/matter/energy in these universes come from?

I am getting this kind of response:
Matter always existed, let's not think about where it came from and just accept that fact.

That is neither logical nor scientific, I would refer to that logic as a "head-in-the-sand" approach.