15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

MadeFromDust

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
2,137
Likes
540
Points
113
1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. ”Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? (This video simply explains the concept of a short biochemical pathway.) Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. ”Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. ”The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.


10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

273hscrabnew1.jpg


The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. ”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … . ”Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ”If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

http://creation.com/15-questions

Good luck.
 
Why did god mix our pee and sex parts together? If I was god I would have separated those things.
 
Who gives a fuck? I watched some of that Cosmos show last night and was bored to death with the fuck religion, science rules crap on it.

We could all be in Lisa Simpson's little petrie dish world for all I know. Or The Matrix. Religion and science can't prove shit.
 
Why did god mix our pee and sex parts together? If I was god I would have separated those things.

who would put a playground next to a sewage processing plant with an amonia release valve? I think I stole that from Louis CK
 
Who gives a fuck? I watched some of that Cosmos show last night and was bored to death with the fuck religion, science rules crap on it.

We could all be in Lisa Simpson's little petrie dish world for all I know. Or The Matrix. Religion and science can't prove shit.

Or in the words of George Carlin, "I'm from the church of I don't fucking know"
 
1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. ”Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? (This video simply explains the concept of a short biochemical pathway.) Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. ”Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. ”The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.


10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

273hscrabnew1.jpg


The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. ”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … . ”Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ”If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

http://creation.com/15-questions

Good luck.

You lost me when you started claiming what people cannot do...I never buy that line.
 

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.
2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.
3. There is no proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.
4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.
5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.
6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants- not a record of the evolution of life forms.
7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.
8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.
9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.
10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.
11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rock, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.
12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggest that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.
 
Like I said before, even if scientists were to recreate life in a lab, it would be the product of intelligent design, not "abiogenesis". It will never happen though anyway because it's simply too complex for the human mind to grasp. Separating abiogenesis from Evolution is also a dodge on the part of evolutionists IMO. Probably because there is no explanation even close to being viable so they simply try to stay as far away from it as possible and say it has nothing to do with their theory. It's a problem that must be dealt with. I also find it funny how mindless forces of nature supposedly created an intelligent world, yet the intelligent world cannot recreate what the lifeless forces of nature "made".
 
Last edited:
Or in the words of George Carlin, "I'm from the church of I don't fucking know"
Exactly. My girlfriend gets pissed when I don't believe something she tells me and I check for myself. Maybe if she was a 1000 and 0 in those situations I'd stop. But, sometimes she is wrong.

Fuck, maybe those so called living fossils changed a shit ton over millions of years but just happen to have changed back to what they used to be just in time for us to notice they didn't change. Think about THAT
 
"non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs"

The couple I just saw exchanging phone numbers at the St. Patrick's Day celebration suggests otherwise.

barfo
 
Like I said before, even if scientists were to recreate life in a lab, it would be the product of intelligent design, not "abiogenesis". It will never happen though anyway because it's simply too complex for the human mind to grasp. Separating abiogenesis from Evolution is also a dodge on the part of evolutionists IMO. Probably because there is no explanation even close to being viable so they simply try to stay as far away from it as possible and say it has nothing to do with their theory. It's a problem that must be dealt with. I also find it funny how mindless forces of nature supposedly created an intelligent world, yet the intelligent world cannot recreate what the lifeless forces of nature "made".
My girlfriend has made amazing dinners she can't recreate to save her life. I made a sweet no look somersault pool underwater swish basketball shot on my first try ever and couldn't make it again in a hundred tries.

Those things you write prove nothing any more than their theories prove nothing.Don't start saying I don't know which terms mean what and yadda blah dee da. Don't care, they are all invented by man.
 
My girlfriend has made amazing dinners she can't recreate to save her life. I made a sweet no look somersault pool underwater swish basketball shot on my first try ever and couldn't make it again in a hundred tries.

Those things you write prove nothing any more than their theories prove nothing.Don't start saying I don't know which terms mean what and yadda blah dee da. Don't care, they are all invented by man.
Except that a living cell is about a trillion times more intricate than those things you mentioned, and they aren't even relatable. A cell is basically a mini city which has inter-working parts and systems that all must have evolved independently and separately from each other and then work together. Sound conceivable to you? One simple cell is more complex than anything human hands have ever made, that's just a simple truth. To say it arose by blind chance is absurdity, and as stated above, essentially statistically impossible.
 
Except that a living cell is about a trillion times more intricate than those things you mentioned, and they aren't even relatable. A cell is basically a mini city which has inter-working parts and systems that all must have evolved independently and separately from each other and then work together. Sound conceivable to you? One simple cell is more complex than anything human hands have ever made, that's just a simple truth. To say it arose by blind chance is absurdity, and as stated above, essentially statistically impossible.
So somebody had to make cells? What is that somebody made of then? Couldn't be cells cause the first guy couldn't exist. I see things in the world that are so amazing that I think somebody had to have made it, but then I wonder if I don't just think that because I wish it were so. Like when we see faces in inanimate objects...we are looking for them.

I remember saying I didn't mind religion because I hoped they were right or at least figured there was no harm in it. If they were wrong they die, if right....heaven! Barfo came along and told me some old French guy thought of it first.....or some old guy from somewhere, maybe not France.

Anyway, my point is that none of us really know.

I remember that question we asked our pastor when I was a kid. Can God make a rock he can't lift? They always told us God could do anything.
 
I'd love to be able to talk and communicate with a burning bush.

Oh, and how can one live up to 900 years like Moses?

:devilwink:
 
What people cannot do? So what did?

Primordial soup, the sponge, heating oceans, and I'm still trying to understand how you counted to a trillion X or is that maybe a slight exagerration? Measurements are more often than not flawed or made to be disproven. Rock dating mutated in the 60's and I blame the Rolling Stones. There's an example of demostrable evolution. What those guys have done with substances would kill a less evolved Rocker. If you think I'm really going to help you with your theology term paper here, I know it's finals this week, just helped my son study but...nah
 
ok, one thing here, dogs have been bred to create new types of dogs. We even have genetically altered food. I don't think cavemen concieved of the idea of silicon breast implants but...tadah!!! They're here now. What force of nature created those? Was is god? Is that where the expression, "Thank God" came from? The man who sent the mars crawler to mars is a little different from the guy who picked his nose with a bone and hunted the wolly mammoth. We haven't even cracked the secrets of the ocean and you're using fossils and dna strands as the basis for all evolution? What about things we cannot see or comprehend with modern tools? There's hope, we're evolving.
 
Except that a living cell is about a trillion times more intricate than those things you mentioned...

You couldn't be more wrong. His girlfriend's amazing dinners are made entirely of trillions of living and/or formerly alive cells.

As for evolution, like the rest of the cosmos, there is no logical reason that it must have a beginning or end.
 
1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell. ”Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? (This video simply explains the concept of a short biochemical pathway.) Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose. ”Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. ”The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.


10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

273hscrabnew1.jpg


The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all. ”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … . ”Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ”If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

http://creation.com/15-questions

Good luck.

That's the glory of science, my friend. Since you say evolution is unable to be proven true, i assume you have absolute proof that God is the creator of the universe?
 
The Genesis flood: Where did all that water come from? Where did it go?

How could the Genesis flood form the Grand Canyon?

How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?

What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only a few thousand years old?

How do you explain the astronomical evidence that the universe is billions of years old, without resorting to the preposterous assumption that the speed of light was millions of times faster in the past than it is now?

What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder?

If your claim that thermodynamics will not permit the evolution of complex living structures is true, then how do you explain, without resorting to make-believe special mechanisms that have no basis in thermodynamics, the development of a chick in an egg?

If creationism is scientifically valid, then why is it necessary to emphasize that the sectarian religious dogma of the Book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority?

If you believe that God can override nature to create living things as described in the Book of Genesis, then what reasons do you have, other than your religious beliefs, that God could not have created living things through a process of evolution?

The standard creationist explanation for the distribution of fossils in geological strata, with most primitive life forms in the lower strata, and mammals and humans in the upper strata, is that clever mankind was smart enough to climb to higher ground to escape the rising flood waters. How do you explain the fact that thousands of persons drowned in the recent Central America floods, in an area contiguous to higher ground? How do you explain the position of the fossils in the geologic layers, with small fossils below large fossils, which is contrary to hydraulic sorting in which large objects settle deeper than small objects?




Care to answer these? :bgrin:
 
1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.
2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.
3. There is no proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.
4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.
5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.
6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants- not a record of the evolution of life forms.
7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.
8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.
9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.
10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.
11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rock, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.
12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggest that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

You lack a fundamental understanding of science which will prevent you from ever understanding why all but two of these statements are ignorant. At this point you're shouting the equivalent of "Why are my underpants white?! I just shit my pants, but the front is white!!! You can't explain that!!"
 
The most easily accessible case made for evolution can be found here, skip to 13 minutes for actual debate:
[video=youtube;z6kgvhG3AkI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI#t=13m12s[/video]
 
There is a recent study about anti-vaccine parents that is relevant. here It says basically people who are wrong, and then are proven wrong, will cling to their beliefs harder if you make them feel dumb for being wrong. If you first fluff their ego, they are more likely to accept one of their fundamental ideas may have been completely off base.
 
We have observed speciation. Thus disproving one of these silly points claimed to be factual.

The chicken growing inside the egg is clear proof there is no designer. The chicken forms from a single fertilized cell and the cells differentiate into beak, feathers, etc, as the cell divides and the chicken grows. No designer involved, period.

So the gimmick seems to be to throw 15 bogus claims out there and if nobody provides the proof they are in error, then they must be factual? Uh.... No.
 
Why bother looking for answers when we can just pray on it?
 
it all boils down to adam and eve fucked their kids or something equally heinous, kinda gross dude

and if we are doing carlin quotes

George Carlin said:
Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man ... living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time.

But he loves you.

and he needs money.
 
Back
Top