[quote author=biblebelievers.com]Question: How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at the resurrection of Jesus Christ, they believe in a resurrection of all life from nothing! Tsk, tsk.
Define life. Abiogenesis in the scientific world requires only that sufficient organic molecules are around and that at least one autocatalytic reaction occur. Variant autocatalytic reactions more able to function in the primordial soup would then prosper at the expense of less robust types, leading to evoultion and natural selection. Mind you, you might wait millions of years for something like that to happen!
Question: Better yet, can anything come to life of itself when it never was?
The big bang is cosmology, not biology.
Question: How can an explosion create anything but chaos?
Question: Are you saying a gigantic explosion will not kill?
Well the Sun is an ongoing, massive fusion explosion on a scale to dwarf anything human beings are ever likely to produce. Sunlight makes plants grow and keeps us all alive.
Question: Do you really expect me to believe an explosion was the deciding factor in the creation of life? I thought explosions, of the magnitude that would send planets flying through the universe, would kill life, not create it!
If you think the Big Bang sent ‘planets flying through the universe’, you need to read more than the back of the dust-jacket.
Question: Before the gas cloud exploded [Gas becoming billions of tons of rocks?] how did it form? The gas had to have a beginning, didn’t it?
Question: If it came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn’t that faith?
Science believes in the Big Bang because it followed the evidence. Effectively, you mathematically run the universe backwards and see what happens. What happens is it seems to explode out of nowhere at astonishing speed. Most physicists will, if asked nicely, admit they have no idea why (but it’ll be fun finding out).
Question: When you have faith don’t you have a religion?
A philosophical point. I have faith in my wife (and, incidentally, worship her), does that make her my religion? I accept scientific claims I am, myself, incapable of verifying, because the scientific method has repeatedly verified other claims to me in the past. I do not ‘have faith’ in the scientific method, I trust it based on my prior experience.
Question: How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one? If it did equal one then how can one female produce offspring? Okay, how could one male produce offspring? Oh, a single cell became two? Then somewhere along the evolutionary trail you had to have male and female.
Question: How does trotting out arbitrary bits of bad math prove anything? 1+1+1 does not equal 3, what does that say about the blessed trinity?
Question: (a)Which one came first, the male or the female? How could one male produce? How could just one female produce? (b)If evolution is correct then somewhere in history there had to be just one whale, one monkey, one lizard, right? Was that one, a male or female?
(a) Logically, neither came first because if there was only one then it wouldn’t be given the name of either sex (are bacteria he or she?). Diploidy (having two of each chromasome) certainly seems to confer several advantages to the organism, but also a fairly obvious cost (twice the work). Perhaps in circumstances where the greater damage resistence and variability of diploidy was more than usually beneficial it became the fixed genotype. Perhaps sex wasn’t originally to our benefit at all, but was a result of the transmission mechanism of a cellular parasite.
(b) Wrong, if sex evolved before whales monkeys and lizards they would have inherited it. I.e. they were male and female long before they were monkeys and whales.
Question: Do both fish and man have eyes because man evolved from a fish or because both man and fish needed to see, in order to fulfill their intended creative purpose?
Because (i) man evolved from fish, and (ii) because it has remained advantageous to the intermediate steps between fish and man to be able to see. Clearly there is no point in putting eyes on something that will never be anywhere with enough light to see. So NS would suggest that genetic drift and the phenotypical cost of producing eyes would lead to fish in dark caves losing their ability to see.