How did all this nonsense get started?

Question

"1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature, such as hummingbirds and the human eye, is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too."
(" "Taken from "The Evolution Cruncher")

How did all this nonsense get started?

Answer 1

And here I thought that wood boxes with nails in them were a naturally-occurring life form. Now I know that if I take a pile of dirt and water in a few days I will have life forms running all over the place. At least I will be able to feed them to the wooden boxes.

Answer 2

Normally I would not try to improve upon Lipsiot's answer, but I thought here I might add a few details. We do not know how the big bang began. But we DO know there was a big bang. Otherwise, why the cosmic background radiation at the appropriate temperature and distribution?

As for two elements + time = 92 natural elements, I take it you are unfamiliar with stellar nucleosynthesis. Our analysis of the spectra of the light from the most distant galaxies reveals ratios of elements much closer to the primordial values of hydrogen and helium predicted by the big bang than does the light from nearby galaxies. This is incredible evidence for the chemical evolution of the universe. If our universe was created a mere 6000 years ago, why can we even see galaxies billions of light years away?

2. We don't know how life began. That remains a mystery, at the present time. Ridiculing science because it lacks answers does not seem productive to me. You don't ridicule other religions which have ALL the answers, simply because those answers conflict with yours, do you?

What we DO know is that no organisms more complex than bacteria existed on our planet for several billion years. We know this because we have accurately dated fossil stromatolites that old. We also know that all the earliest organisms were marine creatures first appearing some 650 million years ago. No terrestrial metazoans (multicellular creatures) date back this far.

We also know the earliest amphibians bear uncanny resemblance to rhipdistian lungfish of the devonian. Why is that? Evolution offers us an excellent explanation. The belief that all life forms were created almost simultaneously in one week based upon a misinterpretation of ancient religious texts is NOT an adequate scientific explanation for the origin of species.

Answer 3

If this is nonsense, what is your alternative proposal?

It doesn't work in the science world to simply quote a creationist evolution cruncher and deny all of the biological findings of the last several hundred years. Science is always moving forward and refining theories with new evidence. What is not yet known is searched for in the real world and not assigned to a god of the gaps in real knowledge.

If you have an alternative, you need some evidence and proof.

Answer 4

How did that nonsense get started? Well it started when you copied and pasted the most simplified and purposely misrepresented strawman versions of big bang theory and evolution theory from a creationist website.

It's similar to saying flour+eggs+sugar+heat+time=cake, you're leaving out important details in the expression (such as the processes involved, other ingredients, etc) that are required for it to equal cake.

A better expression for big bang could be:

(initial_singularity / unknown_process) * (universe.rate_of_expansion * universe.age) = universe.current_state.

And _ABIOGENESIS_ (not evolution as you incorrectly named it) could be:

rich_chemical_soup + catalyst * unknown_quantity = replicating_string; + other replicating_string * unknown_number + environmental_pressures = first_life

Answer 5

Evidently you believe in the oversimplification (to the point of lying) in your "Evolution Cruncher" source.

Abiogenesis is a fascinating field of research. the chemical reactions that can naturally lead to an RNA phenotypic world (which can in turn lead to biological evolution) has so much hard research now that scientists now concede the process is so easy that life is probable anywhere you have liquid water. Our government is even so convinced that it is now planning to spend millions of dollars of your tax money to send a probe that will melt its way beneath the frozen surface water of Europa.

And as far as how subatomic particles became seperate from matter, and how they in turn made protons and neutrons, which in turn made hydrogen, which in turn became suns, which in turn fused hydrogen into higher elements, let's just say that all physicists (who tend to be real smart guys) believe this. Again, there tends to be a great deal of hard research in astrophysics and particle physics, as well as nuclear physics which confirms the theory.

Answer 6

As you have already made it obvious which camp you lie in, then I'll make this brief as your question is thus rhetorical.

Firstly your evolutionary equations are simplistic in the extreme and are not representative of the truth. Secondly you refer to the universe as "structured" and "in perfect balance and order" - it isn't - it's in chaos and constant turmoil, hence evolution.

The "nonsense" as you call it got started as a series of scientific observations and the search for a theory to make sense of these findings.

Frankly (and assuming the alternative to evolution is the creationist lobby) I find it easier to believe the written and rational results of almost 300 years of corroborative evidence from many different schools of science over a collection of writings arbitarily gathered together as one book in the Dark Ages and which has no supporting or corroborative evidence at all.

Answer 7

> How did all this nonsense get started?
A man named Abram had a dream that caused him to change his religion and his name (to Abraham).

Years later, an exiled prince with a grudge against Egypt, Moses, decided to get revenge on Egypt by skiving off with the second-class workers, using their superstitions to help him do it. He concocted a whole mythology around the story of Abraham's dream. He had a group of loyal fanatics, the "Levites," who skewered anyone who disagreed with him.

Answer 8

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, a big brained ape split off from an ancestral primate. While the brain was bigger, it did not come with a set of instructions for how to use it. These primitive humans did not need to know abstract mathematics or a rigorous method of hypothesis testing. Natural Selection drove the selection of neurons that were good at recognizing and avoiding threats, figuring out how to get resources and how to survive as a member of a troop of primates.

One of the requirements of a species with a long period of dependency and development after birth and a legacy of instinctual pack behaviour is that the young generally accept what they are told by their elders. They accept and learn to obey because that would have been a survival advantage. A child who did not obey warnings like don't go into dangerous places would not survive to reproduce and pass on their genes. Children who learned survival from their elders would be more likely to have their own children.

These primates have an instinctual fear of the unknown because strange things, if dangerous, are best avoided and only accepted after they are no longer strange. As part of dealing with the ultimate unknown questions, (What is life? Where did people come from? What happens after death? etc, etc, etc...) they came up with some whoppers of creation myths. All societies have them and the accepted myth changes with time. A popular one now is that an all powerful being (why have a diety that isn't all powerful?) just willed it so. That would explain everything. Why this or that? It's the will of god.

Religions developed so that primates could interact in larger groups than their immediate tribe. Again, the instinct is to treat anyone outside the tribe (not likely to share genes) as threats and competitors for resources. Best to kill them so as to have the resources for you and your tribe (relatives with shared genes). But with a shared religion, may tribes could rally around the shared belief to attain more resources. This is seen in religious texts that laud atrocities and genocide (e.g. Canaanites) and the injunction to treat non-believers as infidels/heretics who should be converted or killed.

Big brains did not come already filled with the knowledge of civilization. Each generation has to be educated so children tend to have the same beliefs as their parents. Parents who believe in all powerful deities pass on that belief to their children as that is the easiest way of explaining the unknown. Being the special creation of an all powerful deity is also a big boost to the ego and can sustain hope when life sucks. These primates tend to react to new ideas the same way as they react to strangers--they reject it. They don't like the idea that they are animals like all other metazoans, subject to the same biochemistry as all other life on this planet. Some are violently hostile to the notion that they are not special creations. They prefer the simplistic but uninformative explanation as that is what they are comfortable with. That is what they learned as children. They are prone to denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not only will some deny the obvious, they will intentionally distort the evidence to prevent acceptance of the new idea, even if the new model works better than the simplistic one.

So, how did all this nonsense get started? You learned it from your parents who learned it from your grandparents who learned it from etc... down the line. Blame natural selection. Our brains weren't selected for the ability to do abstract thinking. Our brains were based on the brains of primates who only needed to know how to survive, not ponder the universe so learning new concepts is hard. Civilization is hard. Science is hard. It's not surprising that you have yet to learn and accept the understanding of the universe as determined by logical thinking and hypothesis testing instead of creation myths told by ancient and fearful tribes.

Answer 9

dunno