Welcome to Gaia! ::

eek Ok that was just over kill, all I want to know is from the time of the Big Bang how did the earth form and life appear? And its not that I've never recived a satisfactory answer, its just that I've never received an answer that is clear and covers the theory from one point to another without a break that leaves me confused.

have a look at what was left after the big bang. Due to the conditions shortly after the bang, we would expect there to be a lot of atoms drifting around, about 10^78 (that is a 1 with 78 zeros after it). About 23% are helium, with some deuterium and lithium, and the rest hydrogen. That isn't a very exciting universe, with only three elements on the periodic table, and one (or two) isotope(s) of hydrogen to play with. For one thing, there was no carbon, oxygen or iron, all of which are now very much a part of our world. But, we know that these number are right, as we can look back into the past using telescopes, and measure such abundances with ease (well, almost).

So, there had to be something between then and now in order for our observed world to fit with their observed world. And there was; stars. The first generation of them

Our sun is part of the second or third generations of stars. The actual terminology is backwards and confusing, so I will ignore it. The first generation were the first lot after the big bang, and the second are the ones that were formed from the debris of the first generation. The first lot tended to be huge, giant stars, unlike our sun or its nearest neighbours in both space and time.

A star is a giant ball of gas, which has been heated to amazing temperatures by the vast amounts of gravitational energy released by the collapse and the pressure of all that gas pressing inwards on it. The temperature inside a star is more than enough for atoms to get close enough together for the strong nuclear force to take over and fusion to take place. This allows atoms to join together to create new, larger atoms. The process follows certain paths through the periodic table, and so these are the atoms we see most commonly. Carbon is a rather simple little element, as are oxygen and sulphur. But eventually you reach iron. Iron is special. It is the most stable nucleus you can get. Fusing iron is not a good thing. While all other elements release energy on fusion, iron needs to take in energy. So, anything beyond iron is detrimental to the stars internal energy. Eventually, the energy released by the star fusing the last of its fuel will be too little to keep the enormous pressures at bay. The core of the star will collapse inwards, releasing vast amounts of energy once more. This, supernova explosion, fires off the outer layers of the star, and often destroys the core itself, leaving all these diverse elements that were created scattered across a region of space.

Fusion is a proven process, and has been shown in labs, and soon in power stations. The idea that stars use fusion is well evidenced and as close to proven as it can be. The supernova process has been observed, and calculations show exactly how all of this stuff happens. Such huge gas clouds are observed today. We call them nebulas, and think of them as the most beautiful sights in the night sky. They are star graveyards. And also potential future stars.

The final supernova explosion is enough to overcome the massive amounts of energy required to fuse the heaviest elements we see today. Any element not formed through such fusion is formed only later, as larger elements decay through normal, weak nuclear decay; the everyday alpha, beta and gamma radiation studied in science class.

These gas clouds are, over long periods of time, subject to the ever progressing attraction of gravity. The elements are slowly accumulated into larger and larger masses, eventually creating a core of sufficient mass to ignite a new fusion reactor, a new star.

But now, with heavier atoms in abundance, there is the possibility of smaller objects forming away from the main centre. Planets can be created from heavier elements and compounds, grabbing the heavier elements where light hydrogen would just escape back into space. These planets are formed from the same dust cloud as their host star, the debris from a dead giant star.

So, from this formation process, we can expect that the Earth first formed with very little atmosphere. As it was forming, elements like pure hydrogen could have easily escaped. We see heavier gases, like nitrogen, far more commonly today in nature than things like helium. But what about oxygen?

Oxygen is dangerously reactive. Many take this as an argument against life forming. Any complex molecule would have trouble in an oxygen rich environment. However, oxygen, by its very reactivity, would have likely locked itself up into compounds, like carbon dioxide or water. CO2 and H2O are vital components of most abiogenesis theories, along with other compounds like ammonia (NH3) which allows hydrogen to be brought into our atmosphere despite its lightness, and explains why there is so much nitrogen around today. So, rather than oxygen being a problem for early life, it was used by it, just locked into different forms than the O2 we rely upon today. Similarly, the compounds would have included other light gases, and that would explain how our small gravitational field was enough to trap the light molecules.

So, conditions for life could have arisen from the formation of our world along with the sun. From there, you are simply talking about odds. The odds are very good that the earth formed along similar lines to those I just described, and very very good that the conditions were similar to those expected in most abiogenesis theories. After all, these theories were made to work with the world back then, not just random thoughts.

How does the Big Bang and intelligent design/creation conflict? I believe it was God's hand that made that bang. the KALAM cosmological argument almost addresses this indirectly. Every effect has a cause- the universe was created by the big bang, the big bang was created by God.

no, I havn't read all the above posts yet-I've just had a long weekend and am in no mood/condition to read such debate

however...the poll leaves out one option-that God was the creator of the big bang.

I can't vote 'big ban' cause that makes it seem like I don't believe God created everything.
I can't vote 'creation' cause I don't believe in the strict biblical, seven day creation and I'm sure that's what was indicated by the poll creator.