Questions for Evolutionists

[artsylady]

I mean if all science is obviously based on natural processes as you say it is, then it may be a flawed process. According to you, science rests on natural process.

That's right. Archaeology and medicine must not be considered 'sciences' anymore. Is this right evolutionists?

[artsylady]

This is where there is a distinction between science and philosophy. Science is based on evidence and fact, philosophy is not.

Imagine for a moment, and I know it won't happen, but imagine that scientists ditch evolution and embrace creation as a reasonable theory.

What would you call the people out there digging up artifacts to prove the Bible? Philosophers? What would you call the people that would be checking out dna and other samples in a lab? Theologians?

There is such a double standard here shrouded by lies and manipulations of so called science and the evolutionists refuse to acknowledge it.

[artsylady]

Ian

In regards to my question of the lack of true transitional fossils, ex creatures with no limbs or no eyes, you stated evolution doesn't work this way.

The fact that there are no true transitionals like this, is proof for creationism, certainly not for evolution.

Anyway, could you tell me then, how did creatures develop eyes and limbs? Did a fish's gills suddenly turn into lungs? Did a fish's fins suddenly turn into full limbs? Did an eyeless creature suddenly develop fully funtioning eyes?

[artsylady]

I asked:

In regards to my question of the lack of true transitional fossils, ex creatures with no limbs or no eyes, you stated evolution doesn't work this way.

The fact that there are no true transitionals like this, is proof for creationism, certainly not for evolution.

Anyway, could you tell me then, how did creatures develop eyes and limbs?  Did a fish's gills suddenly turn into lungs?  Did a fish's fins suddenly turn into full limbs?  Did an eyeless creature suddenly develop fully funtioning eyes?

*

Your response.

No, I said that it didn't work like your strawman. Everything is a transitional fossil. There's no "half" eye, but there are light (and other EM radiation, look at sharks) sensitive areas on many animals. There are also better eyes than we have, take a look at eagles, and celaphods. Do you get it now?

I'll ask again.

Anyway, could you tell me then, how did creatures develop eyes and limbs?  Did a fish's gills suddenly turn into lungs?  Did a fish's fins suddenly turn into full limbs?  Did an eyeless creature suddenly develop fully funtioning eyes?

QUOTE

And having the scientific method backwards as Ian stated, is the same thing evolutionists did. What did Darwin find? Finches and turtles and thus the theory was devised.

No, this is the scientific method the right way round. First come observations, then hypotheses, then evidence, then theories. Backwards would be saying "Evolution is true, now, lets go and find evidence for this".

Well then, I could say, in Creationism, first the scientist observed Genesis, then thy hypothesized that they could find evidence for it, found th evidence and it fits the theory.

No less 'scientific'.

QUOTE

QUOTE

I mean if all science is obviously based on natural processes as you say it is, then it may be a flawed process. According to you, science rests on natural process.

That's right. Archaeology and medicine must not be considered 'sciences' anymore. Is this right evolutionists?

What? Archaeology does rest on natural processes, and so does medicine.

Oh come on now. Both of these rely on human intervention and very little on natural processes. Are you serious?

[sinnersavedbygrace]

QUOTE

Darwin dismissed his theory of evolution adn for some reason, abunch of people that do not want to listen to the truth, decide to jump on the band wagon about a bunch of lies.......

QUOTE

Again, I'd ask you to evidence this - as noone else has been able to. As far as we know, Darwin's deathbed recantation of evolution is a myth - noone has been able to come up with a scrap of evidence that it actually occured.

Wait a minute...do you mean...Am I for the first time going to take sides with ScientificAtheist?! Just joking SA. But yes as far as we know, the idea that Darwin denounced evolution and furthermore converted to Christianty is a myth. The fact of the matter remains: Evolution is not valid nor invalid simply because someone does or does not believe in it. The question is not "who believes in evolution?" but simply "Is evolution true?" Same is said for creationism. Creationism is not valid because someone believes in it, but rather, did it actually happen?

"In my experience, fundamental Christians would rather do any and all of the above instead of simply saying "I don't care if it doesn't make sense, I WANT to believe what I WANT to believe regardless of any evidence"."

In my resent research there is something I've noticed happening more and more:

There will be both fundamental Christians and evolutionists who do this. Despite the "evidence" shown by either side, both will almost always twist and attack what was said. Both will provide more "evidence" to refute the oppositions "evidence" and it seems both sides dance around the questions posed in the rebuttle. Perhaps both sides should say "these are the 100 basic points of our theory", and stick to them, instead of "evolving" them as "evidence" is provided against them, in this dance it may never be possible to disprove the other theory. Both will try to explain how the other side doesn't make any sense, and may I add, for the one who doesn't believe in the other sides theory, it more often then not truly makes no sense to them. I will not understand evolution, now that's not to say I don't understand the basic theory which does make sense, but I don't understand how mutations that are beneficial will be held on to while the mutations that are non-beneficial will be released before defecting the species until over many good changes and much time a new species will arrive. I can understand having several hundred species of dog via changes over time, but they are still dog. I don't see how a dog can evolve to a horse. Or how my great great great great great great great great great great......grandfather was a fish? And furthermore, I don't understand how evolution can be true with the things opposing it. e.g. irreducible complexity/2nd law of thermodynamics etc.

EVERYONE has an opinion...but that's just my opinion

P.S. Though many won't agree with me on this...creationism is stated thus: God created the universe and all life fully formed, not needing millions/billions of years to evolve. The challenge for evolutionists is to prove that the world and life were not suddenly spoken into existence by God. But like I said, many won't agree with me on this simple explanation of creation.

Edited September 17, 2005 by sinnersavedbygrace

[dd_8630]

According to Dr. Kent Hovind,( who offers 250,000 dollars to anyone that can provide scietific proof of evolution - www.drdino.com) the test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions, Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory--it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following are some of the Basic questions Dr. Hovind asks.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. 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? (Does the individual, or the species have the drive to survive? how do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining english letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator intead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection works only with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:

a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two or three celled intermediates?)

b) Single celled organisms evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, and how and from what did:

a) Whales evolve?

b) Sea horses evolve?

c) Bats evolve?

d) Eyes evolve?

e) Ears evolve?

f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long did it work without the others)?

a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose it consumes?

f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

i) The immune system or the need of it?

Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, gave a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view: "One morning I woke up and... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it".

"The story of the fossils agrees withthe account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks, we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms but rather, in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils" - Biochemist D.B. Gower ("Scientist Rejescts Evolution," Kentish Times)

Sounds like a challange

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

Nowhere. There was a singularity of infinitesimally small volume, which has been expanding for the past 12-13 billion years.

2. Where did matter come from?

Energy. Einstein proved, and experiments have shown, that E is indeed equal to mc^2. The initial singularity had a collosal amount of energy (string theory predicts this came from a collision between two multidimensional 'planes', or m-branes) which could only being to materialise when space had stretched to the point where conditions were suitable.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

From the interactions between energy, matter, and the four forces.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

It hasn't. At the quantum level, the universe is a malestrom of activity and entropy. In our visable scale, most of the universal interactions are too weak or time minute to decet, so everything looks calm and, for the most part, tranquil.

Further, most of the universe is actually empty space. You can't have disorganization if there is nothing there.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

String theory, while far from complete, offers one explination: a collision between two 'planes'. Our universe (and in theory an initially identicle one) was/were created from the singularity that formed at the point of thier collision.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Evolution. Simple molecules reacted in many, many different ways until one form proved 'succesful' in reproducing itself. Once you have an unstable self-replicating molecule, and suitable conditions, evolution can begin.

7. When where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

It didn't. Many forms of 'life' existed on primordial Earth. Those that didn't reproduce eventually were destroyed. Those that could were able to continue their form's existance as clones of itself.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

With other cells capable of sexual reproduction. It did not evolve the ability to mingle with another cell and thereby transfer genetic information on its own.

9. 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? (Does the individual, or the species have the drive to survive? how do you explain this?)

Those organisms that happen to have the mindset (in the case of animals) to altruistically rear young will spread the genetic information that codes for such altruism to the next generations. Look at human mothers: most would gladly die for their child's survival.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining english letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Recombining the genetic code can easily create new variations. To deny microevolution is absurd at best. Also, your analogy is flawed: english letters can be rearranged to make new english (and other Romantic language) words, but not Chinese ones. That's like trying to rearrange DNA to form spaghetti: damn difficult

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator intead of a common ancestor?

It may suggest a common Creator, but it does not dismiss a common ancestor. Since offspring are similar but not identicle to thier parents, and such differences become more pronounced as each generation passes, one can trace back similar features in organisms to these original parents.

12. Natural selection works only with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?

Natural selection works with whatever comes along. Chloroplasts and mitochodria were once bacteria that were engulfed, or invaded, a cell and by some fluke became integrated with it. This is just one example of non-genetic variation.

Further, some genetic mutations are insertions and deletions, in that new bases are directly inserted into the genome, thus adding to the complexity.

Q13&14 ask incredible detail (time, place etc) of specific evolutionary occurances, most of which are quite hard to accuratly say 'this is the point where a seahorse evolved, right here'.

13. When, where, why, and how did:

a) Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two or three celled intermediates?)

b) Single celled organisms evolve?

c) Fish change to amphibians?

d) Amphibians change to reptiles?

e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

a) Dipoles are your 2 and 3 celled intermediates. Multicellularity may have occured by two cells becoming inexoriably stuck to each other, perhaps by a faulty mitosis/

b) Covered in a previous question

c) The air-sac used for boyancy by some fish eventually evolved so that oxygen in the sac dissolved directly into the bloodstream. While initially inefficient, fish now had a means of spending short amounts of time onland. From there amphibians evolved (notice their ability to survive in both water and land, a testament to their intermediant nature between water-based and land-based animals)

d) Amphibians are remarkably similar to reptiles. It is no leap of the imagination to see how they could of evolved.

e) The organs mentioned are not that different; for one thing, they are all exist in each group!

14. When, where, why, and how and from what did:

a) Whales evolve?

b) Sea horses evolve?

c) Bats evolve?

d) Eyes evolve?

e) Ears evolve?

f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve

a) Mammals that found it beneficial to return to the ocean, presumably after evolving close to the sea and becoming more sea-bound

b,c) From predecessors, which are perhaps extinct, perhaps not.

d) Photosensitive skin cells (a mutation of mycelin?), initially.

e) Barometrically sensitive cells, coupled with a need for balance.

f) Now you're being silly. Most are extensions of a common covering of the organism (such as the membrance around cells)

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long did it work without the others)?

a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose it consumes?

f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

i) The immune system or the need of it?

a) the need to eat, the ability for food to enter the organism (digested with an adapted form of immunological lysosome, or perhaps the other way around) etc

b) the ability, then the drive. Instincts to do something you are physically unable to do are, usually, weak stratagies for reproduction.

c) An air-sac for boyancy, then the protective layers, then the throat. The 'perfect' mixture is constantly changing, hence the lungs quite hiogh tolerence.

d) RNA, then the more long-term (in terms of stability) DNA

e) Flagella (presumably attached to a cellular organism), then the termite

f) plants, then insexts

g) blood first, then muscles, then bones (after cartalge), then all the things that attach muscles to bones

h) hormonal/repair systems, then nervous

i) the need, then the system

Phew

[Guest Timbo]

Hi dd 8630,

You made the comment that "Simple molecules reacted in many, many different ways until one form proved 'succesful' in reproducing itself. Once you have an unstable self-replicating molecule, and suitable conditions, evolution can begin." Here are some factors to please consider.

All life has to have a foundation. And proteins are at the core of this. Even further down though is amino acids. There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life

[dd_8630]

Apologies for the strangeness that is the quotation notation. It seems quotes arn't allowed here! lol

Hi dd 8630,

You made the comment that "Simple molecules reacted in many, many different ways until one form proved 'succesful' in reproducing itself. Once you have an unstable self-replicating molecule, and suitable conditions, evolution can begin." Here are some factors to please consider.

All life has to have a foundation. And proteins are at the core of this. Even further down though is amino acids. There are over 100 amino acids, but only 20 are needed for life

Edited June 25, 2006 by dd_8630

[dakota190]

please find below a complete list of evidence that confirms without a doubt and with all dependable research collated and accepted as proof of the absolute and irrefutable theory of evolution!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

etc;

thank you for your interest!!

[Hierophant]

(edited by Moderator)

"Steve-O-Meter" That is just too damn funny!

So now I gotta ask the cretinsts. How many Steves are on your list?