1. Explain how some eternal random chance of quantum physics which would have to schematically predate time itself randomly burst forth such a force to create a start to everything out of nothing
Let me clear one thing up right now; the "Big Bang" is a misnomer. It was actually coined by Fred Hoyle. He was an astronomer who supported the "steady expansion" theory concerning how the universe was created. He came up with the term "Big Bang" to be disparaging, because he thought that no one could believe that the universe was actually created by a huge explosion. He obviously underestimated human stupidity.
It was really more of an expansion. One widely accepted theory is that the universe started as a tiny pinpoint fireball-type-thing and it has been slowly expanding ever since. I know that this is incomplete, but ask yourself; is this really any more improbable than some divine being that just "has always been there, and was never created"? I am certain that more knowledge will be garnered on this subject as long as we keep researching it.
In the meantime,
here is a little something for you to read on evidence for the Big Bang.
2. How did we get something out of nothing
The current theory is that the universe started out as a singularity, then slowly expanded over time. And I will be the first to admit that we just aren't sure about this one. And before you say anything; creationism isn't concrete either. When we ask "where did God come from?" and you reply "he has always been"...well...you cannot just create something out of nothing, and something cannot just "exist"; the Laws of Conservation of Mass applies to both evolutionism and creationism.
Here is some reading for you on the so-called "Big Bang".
3. How did we get the carbon to form to start the building blocks of life
If I'm not mistaken, carbon and similar heavy elements started in stars. Stars are one of the few places where fusion actually occurs, so atoms; say, two beryllium atoms, could conceivably be fused together to create one carbon atom.
Now you're going to say one of two things:
1. "How did the beryllium atoms come to be, then?"
Honestly, it would have to be that either matter has always existed or it was created through some surge of energy. We-I-just don't know, really, and I think that the human mind cannot comprehend oblivion.
2. "How were the stars created, then?"
This one's easier; life can't have been formed immediately, obviously, so there would have been ample time for stars to form before the creation of carbon.
Here's something for you to read on about that.
4. How did earth randomly become the only suitable place for a human being to live and how did it become so perfectly adapted to an orbit around a G2V superstar that would freeze us into an ice age if we were simply 1 or 2 light years further away or burn us to death if we were simply 1 or 2 light years closer.
Because a "
erfect planet" was bound to happen. Understand that there are
billions of stars and solar systems in the universe, so it is it really so improbable that
one would be suitable for life?
5. How did the random chance of Earth being the only sustainable place for life occur, and if 6 billion years or more have passed why haven't we seen the same occurrence in other planets or at least the start of it?
Because our view of the universe is limited. What we see from planets millions of light years away from us occurred millions of years ago, and we can't even see many solar systems. It would be a fairly rare occurrence.
8. Where did the matter come from to make life? How did life come to form from dead matter to living matter.
First things first: "dead" matter is still organic matter. This matter was never alive in the first place. It was inorganic, not dead.
I refer you to the theory of
abiogenesis.
First, there was the Miller-Urey experiment, conducted by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. Urey and Miller combined methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gases(three gases that were present in the atmosphere of good ol' pre-life Earth) in a moist environment(above water). To simulate lightning charges, they supplied their experimental system with an electrical current. After a few days, Miller and Urey noticed that their miniature Earth environment contained organic compounds; some of these compounds were amino acids, which are essential to organisms. Miller and Urey continued their experiment and found that this environment also created hydroxy acids and other organic compounds in addition to amino acids.
Then, we have to create DNA(deoxynucleic acid) and RNA(ribonucleic acid), right? There are a few essential components of DNA and RNA: adenine, ribose or deoxyribose(the former for RNA, and the latter for DNA), and a group of phosphates.
First, to the creation of adenine. In the 1960's, Juan Oro combined a mix of ammonia and hydrogen cyanide in an aquatic environment. He found that this could create adenine, a fundamental component of DNA and RNA, as well as being the main component of adenosine triphosphate.
How did it go from being a nucleotide to being a polynucleotide? Well, in the 1980's, researchers found that montmorillonite, a clay-like resource abundant on ancient Earth, could serve as a catalyst for this connection of atoms. So, yeah. Now we have that. And RNA can sometimes clone itself, so now we have RNA; and those RNA compounds that don't make the cut can just split into regular old methane and cyanide.
As RNA replicated, its chemicals were shared with the stuff around it. Lipids like to clump together to form micelles. RNA molecules that drew the micelles to them found themselves protected inside the micelles, so those RNA molecules inside the micelles survived to replicate. And tada! You have your very first cells.
And as time went on, through the processes of natural selection, evolution, and heredity, organisms slowly became more and more advanced and complex. I know it seems improbable, but remember that this is taking place over billions of years.
I think that the above also answers most of your other questions.
Here's some more fun stuff on that, read away!
11. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival according to Darwin's theory of natural selection.
If organisms do not reproduce, they will become extinct. It's as simple as that. No organism is immortal, it will die, so it makes sense to reproduce, creating more organisms to take its place once it dies.
14. When, where, why, and how did single-celled plants and animals become multi-celled? Where are the two-and three- celled intermediates? Where has the REAL missing link been found and not already disproven? Wouldn't there have to be several hundreds of missing links for each species to develop (from fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds or simians) and if there are so many that wouldn't it be simple to find at least a few?
We HAVE those missing links.
Click here, I'm in no mood to list them all.
15. When did eyes or ears evolve and from what did they evolve from?
Well, I refer you again to natural selection. There are slight mutations and variations throughout time that are randomly spawned in living organisms sometimes, and sometimes those mutations and variations are beneficial to the survival of that organism. So, if this lucky mutated organism has a variation that allows it to survive better, that means that it will have a better chance to reproduce, correct? And each time it reproduces, it will pass on its traits to its offspring, and those offspring will have the same beneficial trait, therefore they will survive better and reproduce more than other organisms without the trait. So gradually the variation will become commonplace.
Here's a cool pic of the evolution of the human skull.
So, now that that's dealt with, I'd like to address some common replies from the creationist end of things before you say them.
"2nd law of thermodynamics, dude!"
All the second law of thermodynamics is, is that while quality of matter and energy remain the same, quality slowly deteriorates and usable energy slowly degenerates into unusable energy.
See? Therefore, this argument is just plain irrelevant.
"Evolution claims that humans evolved from monkeys!"
No, no it does not. This is a common misconception; evolution actually supports the theory that humans and monkeys, both being primates, have a common ancestor. This is not the same thing as "we evolved from monkeys".
"If evolution was a fact, it would be called a fact, not a theory! Theory means it's just a guess!"
No, it doesn't. The word "theory" in science is different than the word "theory" in everyday life. If it was a guess, it would be called a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory has been tested, and it has been shown to be true by experiments that support the original hypothesis.
"Well then, how come some things are called laws?"
A theory is a collection of concepts that can be built upon as new evidence is uncovered. A law is a statement about how things work in nature that is consistently true. You can hear about Newton's Laws of Motion or the Laws of Conservation of Mass and Energy, and those have been proved, but no more so than the Germ Theory of Disease or the Cell Theory.
