Friday, 22 May 2009

Creationist Question Time

A short email exchange;
I would like to ask a question for the BCSE evolutionist to answer to clear up some confusion please.
1. What gender evolved first man or female to the first human state as we are today, or was there one person who was asexual to populate the earth and the other gender came later?

2. When the Big Bang happened, and all the matter in the universe came together and exploded to create our universe why is Venus, Uranus rotate backwards then the rest of the planets according to the solar system’s angular momentum?

Here was our initial response;


1.  Humans evolved as a species so there were always males and females around.
2.  The early solar system formation involved many collisions,  this model can account for the solar system we see today.



The next questions;
1. Where did the matter come from to create the Big Bang, when all the matter in the universe came together and exploded?

2. Around what year did the first humans come into a state of a human, not half bread, of producing others kinds of humans, and if it was millions of years ago why isn’t the population larger today?

Our response;

I am happy to continue this with brief answers but if you have access to the web there are plenty of reputable science sites to give you more details. Are you allowed uncensored web access.

Many religious people, including scientists see their god behind the big bang.  Whilst there is good evidence it happened there is not much good evidence why it happened.

1.  From e=mc^2 we know that matter and energy are both just forms of energy. When we carefully measure the total amount of energy in the universe we can see we get a total of zero.

2.  If you stop to think about common descent for a moment you will realize that one particular moment does not exist when we could say that was the time of change other than by application of our label. Just as you can't point to the exact moment a boy becomes a man other than by human convention/ label. We don't have a definitive way to describe a species even. Again a consequence of the inter relatedness of all life.  I have no idea why you think the age of a species should determine the population size. Population sizes go up and down because of many other factors.

Perhaps you would tell me a little why you are asking such questions of BCSE when there are so many reputable science sites on the web and we are a single purpose organisation focussed on keeping creationism out of science classes in the UK?


The response, which we have not dignified with an answer;
There are many reputable science sites, but I am opposed to keeping creationism out of science classes.  I just wanted to see different answers from evolution scientist, and I am seeing that someone has to have faith in evolution just like religion.

Of course from his we can all see just how much science content there is in creationism.


  1. They're testing you, in the hope of getting dubious answers.

    The first "persons" were asexual, followed by hermaphrodites, followed by development of separate sexes, if my reading is correct. Something Darwin confirmed around 1850 when investigating barnacles. What, they don't count barnacles as persons? How egotistical.

    The latest findings suggest human ancestors were half-bread about 45 million years ago, judging by this reconstruction...

    The Reverend Malthus worked out why the population isn't larger today, and a certian theory of natural selection expanded on that a bit.....

  2. This male-female evolution nonsense, along with a long list of similar, has just turned up on the Richard Dawkins Foundation forum. It appears to have come from a spoof creationist site which is down at the moment because "Our holy servers are currently experiencing miraculous amounts of high traffic and atheistic evils. "

    It's apparently been aired on Talk Origins as well, where a possible alternative source was cited: The Missing Universe Museum. It's not clear whether that is a poe as well, but the amount of effort that's gone into it suggests not.