Death_By_Pod

Yeah, the big bang implies a beginning and lets call the uncaused being (which created the universe) god. The question still remains what makes you so sure the uncaused god is the Christian God. It is just as likely to be any other God or for that matter "inanimate protons neutrons and electrons." The universe doesn't have a balanced number of particles and anti-particles, otherwise we wouldn't be here. We should have been cancelled out with an even number or anti-particles, however as you know this isn't the case. Now were left looking for a reason why more matter was made then anti-matter.

Godzira's answer wasn't correct (if you want to help, at least know what your trying to explain), so IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll try to explain it as simply as possible. The second law of thermodynamics basically means that heat will distribute itself evenly. A fridge has less heat then your body, so when you open the fridge door the heat from your body will move toward the fridge, heating the fridge up. Outer space is really cold, and stars really hot, so stars will eventually heat up space evenly. The laws don't state where the energy comes from; it assumes that the energy is already there. The state of being open or closed isn't some sort of deep question. If a system is open then more energy is being put into the system, so the system needs to redistribute the extra energy (it will not reach equilibrium). If a system is closed then it will eventually reach equilibrium and will cease to change any further. If the universe was open that means more and more energy is being put into the universe, if that energy entering the universe was constant then the average temperature of the universe will continually get hotter and eventually it will be too hot to exist in. Our universe is closed as far as we can tell, which means that eventually the universe will cool down to a nice even temperature of a couple of Kelvin. Thermodynamics doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care that God made it or was just there. All it says that heat in a closed system will eventually redistribute itself evenly throughout the system.

But a lot of people do make religious claims in the natural realm such as, God communicating moral guidelines/bible, Jesus being the son of God AND God himself (incarnation), miracles, physical creation and so forth. If God is a purely supernatural concept, how would God impact us in any meaningful way? Any impact we receive, is from the natural realm by definition. Without God using some type of natural phenomena to communicate to us, we have no ability to comprehend God from nothingness.

<-If I'm correct, I believe it is accepted as fact that the process of evolution does occur. But throughout this post this is not what I will refer to when I say evolution. The definition of evolution, as it will apply to the times when I use the word is: To put it simply, we started with microscopic organisms and evolved to where we are today over hundreds of millions or billions of years or whatever. The definitions youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve used are exactly the same, the only difference is the scale used when describing evolution. If you think of evolution at the DNA level, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a change in the chemical make up of the DNA (a sequence of chemicals is a gene, so if you change a chemical in the sequence you change the gene), this is the stock standard definition. If you think of these changes over millions of years, then you start to see some sets of DNA diverge from others to the point that their incompatible with each other (and as you know, branch off from their former species). If you acknowledge that genes change, then you must also acknowledge that these gene changes affect our overall design. If you acknowledge wheat and tomatoes then you must also acknowledge pizza (IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m making pizza, at the moment); a pizza is a made of many pieces of wheat and many tomatoes, yet no two pizzas are the same. They contain many different kinds of wheat and tomatoes which affect their taste and form. The part where you say that there are no living ancestors isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exactly true. Our ancestors are made of different sets of DNA; there is no rule that excludes a set of DNA. There are periods of time in history where two species live together. The problem is that our ancestors are usually disadvantaged in some aspect and canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t adapt to the changing environment (and hence die out). However this isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always the case, there are many different species co-exist (for example Common Finches live in parallel to Galapagos Finches), and this is mainly due to the species not sharing the same ecosystem (so there is no conflict between the species for resources). In the case of our ancestor we shared the same ecosystem so conflicts for resources between the two species occurred, since we had some advantages, we secured the resources more easily and hence we survived for another day. However when we talk about big gaps in the tree of life, (for example fish to birds) we also talk about large time scales. So when you want to compare say a bird to its ancestor fish, the ancestor fish may not have died out but they further evolved into another species of fish which went on to kill off the old species of fish. We see examples of this like the modern crocodile sharing traits with the modern chicken and so forth; although these animals are not direct descendants of each other, they share many neutral and beneficial traits that have carried through both of the animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s individual evolution paths.

It took me way too long to understand your post. Hint: don't use big words when you don't need to, especially words that you made up. Of course philosophical and scientific reductionism is going to be similar; they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t share the word ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâreductionismÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ for nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision_making How do you know your thoughts on religion are reducing to be true either? Science never makes any claims of infallibility. Btw. Godzira I've never heard of that term "philosophical reductionism," a similar sort of idea is that the only thing we can not doubt is our own doubt; which is a Descartes type of reductionism.

Because humans didn't evolve from monkeys :wall: (I wish thereÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an emoticon of someone hammering a nail into their brain via the nose, because thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how I feel when I see comments like these)

If you believe that George W Bush introduced the monitoring of all forms of communication, you are solely mistaken. This kind of activity has been going on for almost 60 years in the form of ECHELON. The NSA doesn't get one of the biggest budgets for nothing (the budget remains classified but is known to be larger then the CIA's). The internet is too large and decentralised to be controlled, there is always going to be someone out there willing to leak news that the government doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to hear. Globalisation is nothing but a good thing; it makes trade more efficient and synergetic. Without such moves, we would never have been able to make such giant leaps in technological progress and living standards. What would you prefer, we go back to subsistence farming; at least we arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t getting screwed by the corporations am I rite?

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty misleading, no one dies from cigarettes either, yet we still harp on about it like it did. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the toxicity that kills you, the related illnesses are the main concern; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not nicotine overdose, its cancer. Quite frankly there havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t been enough studies (mainly due to the government not wanting to fund it, OMG war on drugs!) to conclusively show that marijuana doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t cause cancer; many studies find that it is just too hard to find subjects who only smoke marijuana (and not tobacco). To say that marijuana is ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsafeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ is just pure ignorance; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s as ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâsafeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as any other recreational drug (not very). Just because it has the least harmful effects of most recreational drugs doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make it any safer. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s bad and should be banned, but it shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be touted as something harmless.

I would like to add that there are a fair number of atheists (despite what the name suggests) out there that would support a religion if there were indisputable evidence for it. The problem remains that such a proof would be impossible to produce, hence the existence of the term atheist. If a proof was possible I speculate that there wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t be such a thing as an atheist, it would be like denying the existence of the atom or gravity (sheer stupidity).

What is the purpose of this thread? Is it just state your religion/political view (which is just glorified spam) or is it a discussion (which we have multiple of in this forum)?

Reductionism isnâââ‰â¢t exactly about reducing things to atoms. Itâââ‰â¢s about reducing the number of constituent parts of the universe. Without atoms we would need a separate theory to describe the properties of trees and thoughts. Since we know about atoms, we know that they are made up of the same things, so their intrinsic properties are the same (they abide by the same laws of physics). What makes something a tree or a thought isnâââ‰â¢t their individual properties, itâââ‰â¢s the overall structure of the atoms/electron configuration, reductionism explains why they both abide by the same laws of physics. The way atoms are configured determine their use to us, we might need something non polar, something compact, something highly exothermic etc. Reductionism explains why something is non-polar or exothermic, not why we need these properties in a system. The more we reduce things the greater the redundancy in our work. Sure we could describe the motion of someone jogging as the exchange of electrons between atoms but that creates a lot of redundant calculations (so many in fact that, supercomputers would spend hundreds of years doing them). So instead we calculate the interactions of a single ATP (which still takes many computer years to do) and since we know all ATP is the same we donâââ‰â¢t need to calculate the rest. Then we see how ATP interacts with other large molecules to make us jog. In many cases (such as the one above) things donâââ‰â¢t need to be described by individual atoms since the effects of atomic behaviour are many orders of magnitudes smaller then the overall effect. This applies to everyday things (since they are much bigger then atoms) so the idea that trees and thoughts are made of the same atoms seems foreign because we donâââ‰â¢t see atomic influences, we see the overall influence (the sum total of atomic influences).

Not necessarily. When you analyse a lot of dynamical systems there are certain values when abrupt changes to behaviour occur. Something that was once stable can become unstable, and that the same point a new stable branch can form. The two systems donâââ‰â¢t interact at the bifurcation point since one is stable and the other is unstable. Taken from the bifurcation theory page on wikipedia: âââ¬ÃâIn mathematics, specifically in the study of dynamical systems, a bifurcation occurs when a small smooth change made to the parameter values (the bifurcation parameters) of a system causes a sudden 'qualitative' or topological change in the system's long-term dynamical behaviour. Bifurcations can occur in continuous systems (described by ODEs, DDEs or PDEs), and discrete systems (described by maps).âââ¬Ã

The problem I had was that you just rambled on about an idea and provided nothing solid to talk about. So if there was something that didnâââ‰â¢t sound right in your argument, I couldnâââ‰â¢t respond to it adequately because you didnâââ‰â¢t describe your idea adequately. This is much better and in a form where I can responsed to. Where is your evidence for number 1, this premise is unfounded. Why should belief in a supernatural realm make you mind logical? Your brain is natural so wouldnâââ‰â¢t it be fair to say that anything the brain does is also natural? By claiming thatâââ‰â¢s your brains logicalness is a result of the supernatural, breaks the dichotomy between supernatural and natural. Why would we call something supernatural if it affects the natural, by definition if it affects the natural it must be natural itself. Furthermore what does believing in a supernatural realm have to do with the existence of God? I believe in a supernatural realm but that belief doesnâââ‰â¢t mean anything to my rational thought since they are separate compartments. I donâââ‰â¢t think you can draw conclusions from supernatural realm because you canâââ‰â¢t inquire about it and making life changing decisions based on the supernatural is irrational. From 5, can you believe in a creator but still be sceptical Godâââ‰â¢s existence? Iâââ‰â¢m asking because Iâââ‰â¢m in such a situation. Your whole life is one that revolves around censuses with others and the community. You abide by the laws of the region, you follow social custom, and you do your job according to its description and so forth. If you canâââ‰â¢t come to a consensus on the bigger picture then it is impossible to do day to day activities. Someone trespassing on your house because they donâââ‰â¢t like the fact that you own it, someone crashing into your car because they thought a red light meant go, being fired because you didnâââ‰â¢t clean the kitchen even though its not in your job description, being taxed more because someone at the tax office doesnâââ‰â¢t like the sound of your name, tough. If you canâââ‰â¢t see that what we do every day is a consensus between people, then I donâââ‰â¢t know what else I could say. I thought such a thing was obvious. If you donâââ‰â¢t want to play by the rules of consensus, thatâââ‰â¢s fine but donâââ‰â¢t expect everyone else to play by yours. Brain is made of chemicals and impulses, no way! If the mind isnâââ‰â¢t capable of thought then how can we diagnose neurological illness (using things like MRI's). Are you serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain do a little research, maybe you can answer your own question. I don't ask you to define words or what logical thought is (which would be a pretty good question actually). Yes, you can still make absolute statements in a relative environment. How much weight they have is dependent on how much everyone else agrees with it. You can never get truth. Itâââ‰â¢s the nature of this universe, what we know is a representation of truth based on the sum total of our knowledge; after all it is truth because we havenâââ‰â¢t seen knowledge to the contrary. Why is this a bad idea, after all if we canâââ‰â¢t find the truth, the next best thing is to find the truth based on what we know. If you donâââ‰â¢t think something is true then your welcome to put up a more accurate explanation, which works at least as well as what was previously thought to be true. What good is blindly accepting the truth on the advice of someone else, look at politics for a start. My history and philosophy of science teacher was advertising next semesters course and on the slide is remarked âââ¬Ãâwhat is truth?âââ¬Ã

I was going to write up a longer response but my power flickered and I lost it. To be brief welfare is like insurance; there are a lot of legitimate uses of it but all you ever hear in the media are the people ripping off welfare or people defrauding insurance companies and this propagates the idea that welfare isn't doing a good job. When you deal with millions of people it is impossible keep track of them without spending more then whatâââ‰â¢s reasonable and thus why you sometimes see slackers living of it. Why should we have to pay insurance when you may never have to draw from it? Because you will be sorry if you didnâââ‰â¢t pay for it and you do have to draw on it. Social security is too important to be left as a decision for you (to join or not), much like every other service the government provides. Why would a business want to invest in social security when there is no profit to be made? Should sick people (and people from work accidents), low wage workers, full time students (which in turn fill technical positions), people were fired, people who want a new job and so forth be panelised because a couple of people are spoiling it for them? In my country it is getting harder to bludge off the system due to mutual obligation (attending job searching workshops 9am-5pm and so forth), maybe you need to find a way to discourage people from taking advantage of the system rather then scrapping it altogether. You wouldnâââ‰â¢t remove the science budget because a couple of people are putting in shoddy research propositions. Sorry I havenâââ‰â¢t really gone into it too much since I lost my original response to a power surge.

When everyone else can come to consensus on a subject it either means we are correct, or that we are all wrong. In most cases itâââ‰â¢s the former; however the latter is not too uncommon. Thatâââ‰â¢s the lovely thing about science, instead of hating the person who proved your idea wrong, you embrace them with open arms. Its not merely anything, they are chemicals and impulses are formed into a structure capable of logical thought. A computer is merely chemicals and impulses, so how are they all capable of logical thought and drawing the same conclusion independent of one another? But reality is not based on absolute thoughts, there is no truth. Everything is based in relative terms, even science. However we have a reason to be logical, itâââ‰â¢s the way brains are formed. Even if what you say is true, there still is reality; it just isnâââ‰â¢t homogenous from person to person. Funny, the same thing can be said to many ignorant people here (including you). Just because you canâââ‰â¢t comprehend how nature works doesnâââ‰â¢t mean you can go off and invent something in your mind that does. And your viewpoint is inconsistent with consensus. In order to make it consensus, you need to make a compelling argument for it over the current consensus. What you have so far is faulty reasoning; you can trust other people so long as their experiences match your own. If you canâââ‰â¢t trust someone else, prove why your view is right. Either your right or you were ignorant of your own observation, its called science. The one thing that you can never doubt is your doubt. This scepticism has been held since the dawn of modern science (by my definition), Bacon proposed that we get rid of our idols (external influences) and see things for what they are. Science is a kind of consensus, we all take turns at seeing the world and then we collaborate to formulate what we saw. You canâââ‰â¢t have these kinds of experiences with religion, since religion is an idol; an influence of other peopleâââ‰â¢s opinion, there is no world to see in religion. By the way, your logic is horrible. You have an idea that you want to prove and you bend the little understand of logic you have to accommodate your ideas. You chain a lot of facts and implications together that are not well founded outside of your brain. Thatâââ‰â¢s true, however a large proportion of what one side is saying is pure trash. Not everything on the internet can be taken as truth; some people here seem to think otherwise. The internet is a giant echo chamber; you only need a few dozen people who share the same idea to validate each other. Itâââ‰â¢s the reason why we see so many faulty arguments repeated over and over (even when people from the same side disproved the argument, like the vapour canopy http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ33.html), the material comes from a few select places and to some, see it as a means of validating there faulty premises.

Do not do this. You need to match the 'length of the loan' to the right 'loan option'. For example, you don't pay your house off on a credit card, because a house is a long length of loan and credit cards are only for short term payments; credit cards as a result are a bad option for house loans. School loans are medium to long in payment length, so you are better off getting a term loan; I don't know where you live but you should check with your [prospective] university for payment options as they are always willing to help (more students, more money), they may even offer loans which suit your needs.

Nothing, but if God is infallible and has foresight then you don't have free will over decisions. If God is always right and he knows youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re going to do X instead of Y, then the only option you can take is X otherwise god is wrong (is fallible and doesn't have foresight). What's the point of God having foresight if it doesn't turn out to be true; it may as well be a guess. Fortune tellers guess the future, God doesn't (unless your willing to part with his infallible ability of foresight); pretty big difference. Love can only be explained by 'chemicals and cells', it is meaningless and of no practicality to talk of love in terms of the supernatural because love is a natural phenomenon. God can't magically change these facts, because he has no domain over them. There is a strict dichotomy between natural and supernatural, you simply canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have something transcend this division otherwise there is no point in making the distinction between natural and supernatural in the first place. Furthermore is there even anything wrong with being just an animal, what would make you think we were any different from them; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s pretty clear that we share a lot of traits with them.

I'm not sure if this is the same all around the world, but most hospitals have a panel of bio-ethicists to deal with similar medical dilemmas. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m pretty sure in cases where the person is informed, mentally fit and not under duress, the request to do a procedure would be accepted. Why should someone who wants euthanasia (and assisted suicide for that matter) have to go through more hurdles then other permanent operations like a sex change? In order to get a sex change you need to be mentally fit, be informed of the procedure and given a little time to think it over. Should we have a panel for procedures like these? Well you seem like a perfectly normal person who wants a sex change but were not going to do it because we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s acceptable. Come off it, euthanasia isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even about a radical ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâlifestyleÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ choice, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s about dying peacefully; why should we deny a persons right to die?

1. DNA is the mechanism for change. It proves that people change from one generation to the next, that's the very definition of evolution. 2. Big bang explains the expansion and mass distribution of the universe and the theory explains that fine. Where stuff comes from isn't a question of the big bang, it probably isn't even a question for science. 3. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html documents a lot of information about transitional fossils from a wide variety of sources. Feel free to disprove it, I have a feeling you won't be though. 4. Miller-Urey proved its hypothesis; you can create amino acids from lightning and chemicals. It never was used as a theory to explain the creation of life. It might be a step towards explaining the beginning but it definitely isn't anywhere near the solution. 5. Planets orbiting stars disproves what was stated in the bible, that the sun revolving around the earth with the Earth standing. 6. Dunno either, maybe we know a lot more about chemical reactions and how they work compared to hundred of years ago? 7. There plenty of proof for stellar evolution (the physics lab presentation I done last week was based on this), however this is different to biological evolution so I don't know why this was mentioned. 8. Where on Earth did you get the idea that the age of the Earth is guess work? If you ignore geological aging etc. there is one thing which you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t get rid of, the sun. If we can calculate the age of the sun, we can calculate the age of the Earth which is in the region of billions of years. 9. You know there are other radioactive isotopes apart from Carbon? These can also be used for dating. Just because we don't know how much of an isotope there was, we can still get a ball park figure. You never see anyone age something to the exact year, its always hundreds of thousands or millions of years; its an approximation. 10. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp this creationist report (scroll to conclusions if you want) disproves what you said. The whole point is moot anyway since they knew how much dust was on the moon before they had people there. While the person you quoted didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really explain themselves properly, you just took it a step further and spouted out your ignorance to what really happens around you. You continually put forward arguments which have been disproved for decades and could have been cleared up if you bothered to do a little research before you post; Come off it this is tired and repeated discussion, you should know better then this.

(definition by msn) In order for there to be effort, there must be something making the effort. According to what you said, there was energy before atoms. 2. The law of conservation of mass applies to ALL CHEMICAL REACTIONS. The big bang theory states that there was a biproduct of dust after the explosion which is proof that the theory involves a chemical reaction. Your definition has nothing to do with atoms. Force fields (like electric and magnetic fields) are not composed of atoms yet they have the ability to ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åmake an effortÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

That doesn't mean much; the school environment is completely different to a more private environment. Maybe she wasn't happy with it, but only went along with it because she was under pressure from her peers to act "normal." I'm not saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your fault, but sometimes how people behave around friends is completely different then without them. Anyway I can't really tell whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s going on from a couple of posts.

So where did you exactly touch her (the most important part was left out of your post)? If it was the first couple of dates (and that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re in high school), I would have been really weary about touching her. In my view younger people interpret physical contact as intruding on their personal space and unless she likes you, would feel somewhat uncomfortable about any personal contact (outside things like shaking hands, ushering her through a door you have open for her etc.), especially for a new date. You might have thought putting an arm around her lower back or an arm just below the shoulders when walking around might have been a gentlemanly way of showing you care about her. However I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have really tried this unless you two were comfortable dating each other, I think you just took it a little to fast for her liking. If it was anything more personal then the above I could see why she was upset, just be glad that you can learn from your mistakes. There isn't much you can do about rumours, welcome to high school social drama; you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t worry too much about being labelled a pervert, rumours will pass with time. Once youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re out of high school most people couldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care less or even remember what happened, especially for unsubstantiated rumours like this.

So, unless something was created before by a superior being, either the universe or the big bang happened, and I think that the universe DOES exist. It's not conservation of mass, its conservation of energy. When the big bang formed, particles didn't exist because the energy was too concentrated to allow particles to be formed. Some more examples are nuclear reactions, they don't have the same atoms from one reaction to another, however their overall energy is conserved.