These people exercised their free will(s) by ignoring evidence that had been presented to them. Their society was full of super-natural events. The probality of them occuring randomly is infinitesimal. They had supernatural events and ignored it as proof of a God. Now we have science, and ignore it as proof of a God. I will elaborate in my next point, as it will tie into some of your comments.
You completely dodged the point that God murdering all those people was not an act of human free will.
Of course no one really died, but if the bible wasn't a work of fiction then they must be mass murders by a loving god, however you choose to define love.
You are also treating the bible as a historical document. It is not. It is a religious text.
how could any of the mass have come into existence at the beginning of the big bang if there was no energy? It couldn't.
You're operating under the assumption that this universe came from nothing. The big bang is merely an explanation for how this universe formed, but it does not limit that which can occur outside the system. To assume "God" simply because you don't have the answers is to embrace ignorance.
People used to belief that dirty clothing or piles of moldy grain spontaneously generated mice.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/Bio114/spontgen.htm
That leaves us two choice. We must either lie to ourselves and say that the energy came from no where and break our own law, or more logically, we could say a deity input that energy into the system.
1. You assume a closed system.
2. "God Did It!" is not an acceptable answer without proof. Admitting one does not yet have the answer to a problem and working toward it is the proper methodology. Claiming a deity performed an act without substantiating proof is fraud. *The bible is not proof.
That doesn't tell you where the deity came from, but a God creating energy is more logical than energy created by nothing. That just sounds silly.
Yes it sounds terribly silly that you would consider God logical.
What you might consider "nothing" can be the equilibrium of two states of charge, positive and negative arriving at a zero sum.
And once again you make assumptions about the origin of the universe. Where do you get your information? The people with the best tools to see back into the depths of time still don't have access to that information yet.
And you can just pull it out of your head like that?
Also consider the strong nuclear force since we're being scientific. You expect me to believe the protons and neutrons are held together perfectly because of chance?
No I don't. Because they are not.
I don't that's a wise thing to believe in because the universe only had one chance at making it perfect in the beginning.
What is your definition of perfect, and what qualfications do you have to define a perfect universe?
If the strong nuclear force was only a few more micronewtons stronger, then neutrons and protons would collide making all other atoms besides hydrogen impossible to exist. Without carbon, you and I wouldn't be typing these arguments. If the strong nuclear force was a few micronewtons weaker, then atoms would fall apart and newtonian objects couldn't exist.
When speaking of probabilities of something that already exists, the probability of such a thing occurring is 1.
To speak of Darwin, out of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of species we know of, we have never seen evolution in progress, ever.
Would you care to retract that statement?
The 20 year E. coli experiment by Richard Lenski observed over 20,000 generations of E. coli, archived at 75 generation steps, and shows demonstrable evolution.
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
Bacteria evolved to eat Nylon, which did not exist until the last century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
There has been observed speciation in many types of plants, and short-lifespan creatures such as
Rhagoletis pomonella.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot
Additionally look into Ring Species to see how genetic distribution over long distances results in short range interbreeding ability, but long range inability as genetic drift occurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
These are variations within DNA, but not actual mutations as macro evolution suggests to have happened.
I have 2 animals with specific genetic mutations in a cage 3 feet from me.
Male humans average around 150 mutations per generation. Apply that to hundreds of thousands of generations and you will find a significantly different organism.
Take a full set of Encyclopedia Britannica's and change 150 letters each second for the next 100,000 seconds. Then read one of the articles. That is evolution in action.
but not one single time was the mutations beneficial
Patently false. See above.
Additionally, the random nature of mutations will result in negative, neutral, and positive outcomes.
A mutation which kills off the individual on their 50th birthday will persist in offspring until eliminated by sexual selection of genes or point mutation. Since the individual is beyond reproductive age this lethal gene does not interfere with reproductive fitness, the "fittest" of Darwin's mechanism.
Why is Evolution still taught as a theory and not as fact?
Another example of a creationist trying to discount something because their definition of the word is "guess" while science has a very different interpretation.
A scientific theory is arrived at through several stages. An observation is made, and a hypothesis is formed. From the hypothesis experiments are designed. The experiments are performed and the evidence is collected. If any part of the experimentation process is found to be falsifiable, eg. removing an element of the experiment does not change the outcome, then the experiment is revisited until it is no longer falsifiable. With sufficient evidence you may then present this information as a theory.
If you don't have much regard for theories you can just float off into space now, as we only have a theory of gravity as well.
We have the fact of gravity.
We have the fact of evolution.
edit: Just in case you try to use the "Law of Gravity" here, a law refers to a consistency of predicted state but does not entail an explanation. You can know that what goes up must come down, but not know why. This falls under the purview of laws.
Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.) to deny a deity so they don't have reprocussions for their actions.
Scientific frauds don't last long, because there is continued inquiry.
If religion tolerated inquiry there would be no religion, hence the whole Adam and Eve fable intimating that seeking knowledge is wrong.
Mitochondrial DNA and the study of Endogenous Retroviruses confirm the main talking points of natural selection. Darwin was not aware of genetics, nor the specificity of how the traits were passed on, but his theory of natural selection has borne out under close scrutiny by whole fields that couldn't exist if he was wrong.
Genetics is not a field where the bible can provide any insight.
