[QUOTE][B]Evolutionary scientists acknowledges with the Big Bang theory that a beginning is needed. Everything that is physical and tangible must have a start.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually that isn't necessarily so. The late astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle (*ahem*) spent most of his career pushing a steady-state universe with no beginning and no end. The data was not on his side, of course, but to claim that the universe *had* to have a beginning is begging the question.
[QUOTE][B]The Big Bang (that didn't happen) was pure energy without any means of harnessing the energy.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Matter is energy, energy and matter are interchangeable. In fact virtual particles are spontaneously created out of energy in the vacuum every day. This is the Casimir Effect, you might look into it.
The BB leads directly to matter and that leads directly to hydrogen atoms which leads directly to stars and formation of heavy elements through fusion. A non-natural method of harnessing that energy isn't needed any more than we have to build machines to make a thunderstorm (converting the thermal energy of air and the latent heat of water vapor into rain, wind, and lightning) it can happen spontaneously in nature.
[QUOTE][B]To better exemplify this, think of atomic energy. Radioactive material, such as uranium, is the energy needed to create atomic bombs, electricity, etc... But unless the uranium (energy), is put into a useful (or not so useful!) system, it is worthless.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Nope, simple decay will heat the surroundings spontaneously. If radiation-tolerant microbes were around they could live off the heat.
In fact, this system on a global scale is what powers plate tectonics and volcanism, which is an essential element in keeping us alive even though those the phenomena all appear to be completely "natural".
The point is that thermodynamics does not account for any sort of "harnessing". The best our technology does is take something that could happen anyway and make it more efficient. The mountain of uranium in nature would just be warm for a long time. If we purified it and put it in a reactor we could generate a lot of heat in a small amount of time. Same amount of energy but different timescale and we can use the energy for our purposes. However, in nature, the energy would most likely be "used" for something else, if not just heating the hillsides.
By the way, stars are an example of a natural fusion reactor. No design is necessary, you just need a cloud of hydrogen. That's pretty useful, don't you think? Where does most of the energy in our foodchain originate?
[QUOTE][B]Without a means of converting it, a mountain of uranium would do us very little good[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Unless, again, it were used in nature by driving plate tectonics. The fact is that energy is "converted" into "useful" (subjective term) forms in nature as well as in human design.