Why is atheistic evolution absurd? [Spirituality & Religion]

First atheism and evolution have no causal relationship to each other.

Atheism is the refusal to accept the existence of a Semitic god.
It has a few variants, which are discussed by Dawkins in [i]"The God Delusion"[/i].

There are plenty of devout people - Jews, Christians and Muslims - possibly a majority, who believe that science, evolution and faith in God are entirely compatible. They say the story of Genesis is a poetic metaphor, and that evolution was the actual means by which God created the world. The Catholic and Anglican churches accept this view.

Evolution started as a scientific theory. It has gradually gathered an enormous amount of evidence to justify its acceptance by scientists across many fields. Scientists have never proposed that life evolved from nothing.
On the contrary, the universe had already existed for billions of years before life on this planet evolved. It is probable that life had already evolved on countless other planets, but they are too far away for us to know about.

Physicists did, for a very long time, have a difficulty with explaining how matter and energy first manifested as the universe.
Theories include the Big Bang, an expanding and contracting universe, and a finite universe that will die of endless expansion.
Each idea initially had some evidence to support it, but not enough to explain all the known phenomena of the macrocosm and quantum physics.

However, since developments in string theory in mathematics, in astronomical and laser and nuclear measurements, and the discoveries of the Boson particle, dark matter and dark energy and the ways in which they interact, physicists are edging closer to a Universal Field Theory. If they get one that can be verified via experimentation and measurement, and which can reliably predict phenomena, we will be closer to discovering exactly how the universe came into being - or whether it has always existed but in differ forms and phases.

Evolution doesn't care about one's faith or lack thereof, so a sentence starting with the expression "atheistic evolution" is absurd itself.

And the answer supported by creationists is even more absurd since
1) they date the beginning of the world 5000-6000 years ago, we have an pretty much infinite amount of evidence for life to have existed much, much before than that and
2) even if we admit there's been a creator, who created the creator itself?

Why would an Evolutionist assume that there was ever nothing? The first law of thermodynamics states that: "Energy can neither be created no destroy it can only be converted from one form to another." The Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy states that: "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another." Mass is energy at a lower frequency. Mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted into mass. Mass being converted into energy is what happens in nuclear fusion and fission. Some scientists feel that Energy being converted into mass is what happens when light particles are combined to create electrons and positrons.

The fabric of space has mass that can be measured by the gravitation effect of dark matter and dark energy.

The Big Bang theory is often misrepresented in media and oversimplifications of what it is, mislead people to believe that scientists believe that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. In reality, the Big Bang Theory is simply an explanation of what made the universe to be what it is now. IE (when God decided he was sick of the way things were and decided to create the universe)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#14dfbb3355df

The formation of life on earth could have easily evolved with the naturally occurring elements and processes on the planet. Laboratory experiments have reproduced the conditions that scientists believe existed at the time of early life developing and common amino acids have formed. The kicker is that it didn't take very long in a lab for these amino acids to form in laboratory conditions. So if you extrapolate that out to the thousands or billions (depending on what a person believes) of years since the earth formed or was created, simple amino acids could, in theory, quite easily evolve.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated/


Evolution is changes in the amino acids that make up a an organisms DNA. With small organisms that reproduce quickly, these changes can influence an entire population in a matter of days. With larger organisms, it takes longer only because the organisms reproduce more slowly. Changes in DNA can occur randomly because DNA is matter/energy, and matter/energy is constantly in a state of flux and interacts with other matter/energy like radiation, oxidation, or just because the molecules electric field happened to be influenced by some other electric field.

All these changes on the molecular level are dictated by a set of interactions that do not change. Someone or something had to make those laws and dictate how those mass-energy interactions should work. Maybe it was random and the universe just kept failing and restarting until it found a set of rules that allowed it to exist. Maybe the universe has always existed in some other form or another and a catalyst (maybe God) of some kind, caused the conversion of dark energy into regular energy into matter (the Big Bang), that resulted in our current universe and the conditions that would create life on Earth.

I really don't see how evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.

I don't know anyone who says nothing became something/everything.
Truth is that nothing is fixed or unchanging. Therefore nothing was created. There is no fixed thing that could have been created.

Nobody says anything came from “nothing.” It’s theists who refuse to say where God came from or how he came up with his designs. So it’s theists who say something came from nothing.

[quote]
I really don't see how evolution and creation are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

Or as I would read that, science seeking to understand [i]how [/i]it is happening, irrespective of any deity; and religion saying its deity is making it happen, irrespective of how.

So, no, they are not mutually exclusive. They ask different questions.

The problem boils down to some deeply-religious people afraid or unwilling to accept that there exist, four basic but important differences:

a) Between belief in, doubt of, and outright denial of, the existence of any deity - as exemplified by the reductive notion expressed in the OP.

b) Between different but usually sincere interpretations or expressions of belief in their own chosen deity; let alone between theirs and any faith worshipping any other god(s).

c) Hence between believing generally in a mystical but creative deity, and in scriptural descriptions of ancient interpretations of that deity.

d) Between the natures, aims and purposes of science, and of religion.

'

Naturally I do not believe in re-incarnation, but I sometimes wonder what the ancient Hebrew priests would make of it if they could come back now and see what has been discovered well over 2000 years later.

They were not stupid, they simply did not have available the breadth of knowledge we enjoy now. I think once the basics were explained so they could grasp simple summaries of the natural sciences, and the vast scales of time and place involved, they would embrace that modern knowledge as showing their God's handiwork to be far more beautiful, sublime and majestic then they could genuinely have imagined. And yes - including the principle of evolution.

I don't think Speedyman is an outright Creationist despite his binary question, but what would those scribes re-incarnate make of that philosophy? I think they would regard it, as I do, as demeaning not only them, but also God.

I don’t understand

So god must have done it

What came before the Big Bang? How to get a Universe from no space, no time, no matter:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8-oocxPwlM]

To be devil's advocate I wanted to give out that video aside from my personal opinion which is different. Though to the video narrator's credit, they do ask where these laws came from in the first place and he also states that these forces can probably exist regardless if there was a universe or not, that is the ultimate question. But it does give a good example of how nothing can create something.

At any rate, there's a few problems I have with your view. The one issue about your view is that even if nothing can't create something, you automatically assume it's "your" god or even if it is a god that created everything. We create, are we Gods? Do forces need to be a god to create?

I think when Robert Anton Wilson said that everyone was a pope is technically correct, if we create, we are all gods. I firmly believe this though irrelevant to this conversation. I just don't buy the concept that your version of a god is any more or less incorrect or correct as saying nothing came from something.

Furthermore, the word nothing by itself is a misnomer because nothing means that it is the complete absence of something, there's "nothing" there. But the universe is filled with forces like energy and gravity.

Stars are a good example of this.

If you consider that, nothing can create something probably from the same recycled forces that are out there, including the ones that make you fall off a cliff.

Once again, you betray deep ignorance of the subject, this time mistaking evolution and cosmology.

Democrats deny science by claiming there’s more than two sexes.

Republicans deny science by denying evolution and climate change.

I think an anesthetic is important for things like surgery and wisdom teeth removal

I thought you wrote aesthetic evolution, and was thinking people getting sexier ain't a bad thing 😏

Amen, brother!

Or God just made everything out of itself, maybe!!!

It's a lie plain and simple.