Creation.com

[Danno 1,228]

15 Questions for Evolutionists

1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Pro- fessor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spon-taneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 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? creation.com/origin.

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? creation.com/code

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 creation.com/meta-information. 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? creation.com/train.

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? creation.com/defining-terms

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 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.”3 creation.com/motor (includes animation).

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.”4 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.”5 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? creation.com/design_legit

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? creation.com/multicellularity

8. How did sex originate? Asexual repro- duction 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). creation.com/evosex

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 imag- ination, 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”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote

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.”7 creation.com/living_fossils

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? creation.com/chesterton

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.”8 creation.com/sexstories

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.”9 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 ....”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experi- mental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance

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.”12 creation.com/notscience#distinction

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 ....”13 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.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience

1 Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. 2 Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004.

3 Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. 4 Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. 5 Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. 6 Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. 7 Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. 8 Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. 9 As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. 10 Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn't further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution- creation-debate-biology-opinions- contributors_darwin.html. 11 E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back 12 pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. 13 Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. 14 Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Creation.com Just because it's drives some nuts.

There, thread title fixed.

[Fuzzness 2]

I'll just answer the easy ones because it's past midnite, I'm tired, and it's time for bed.

Questions 1, 2 and 11 have nothing to do with evolution.

9. Not all life forms that die become fossils. Besides, ALL life forms are transitional.

13. vaccines, insulin, antibiotics, etc...

15. this is a retarded question.

The authors of these questions clearly show how ignorant they are about evolution and science in general.

[웃 910]

Danno, we are a little tiny microscopic rock.

Humans have only been around for 400,000 years.

The dinos were around for 160 million (or 400,000 years 40 times in a row)...Honestly we've really only been technologically advanced for the last 50 years....50 years vs. 400,000 years vs. 160 million years vs. a planet 4.5 billion years old vs. a stupid fairy tale religion that is barely 2000 years old.

Do you understand that if you traveled at a constant speed of 186,000 miles a second it would take you 100,000 years to go from one end of the Milky Way galaxy to the other? How old are? 50 years? You'd be 1/10th of a half a percent way across with still another 99,950 years to go.

We are 1 galaxy among hundreds of billions.

Let's say the current deficit for 2011 was $500 billion....It'd be like paying $1 (1 galaxy) towards that number.....Literally nothing.

Let's call religion $2,000 for 2,000 years old....Let's call the earth $4.5 billion for it's age. If you've got a debt of $4.5 billion - religion (to me) - is like making a one time payment of 2 grand....Great, but you still have a debt of $4.4 billion + 99 million + 998 thousand dollars. It's a joke.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[웃 910]

Danno, we are a little tiny microscopic rock.

Humans have only been around for 400,000 years.

The dinos were around for 160 million (or 400,000 years 40 times in a row)...Honestly we've really only been technologically advanced for the last 50 years....50 years vs. 400,000 years vs. 160 million years vs. a planet 4.5 billion years old vs. a stupid fairy tale religion that is barely 2000 years old.

Do you understand that if you traveled at a constant speed of 186,000 miles a second it would take you 100,000 years to go from one end of the Milky Way galaxy to the other? How old are? 50 years? You'd be 1/10th of a half a percent way across with still another 99,950 years to go.

We are 1 galaxy among hundreds of billions.

Let's say the current deficit for 2011 was $500 billion....It'd be like paying $1 (1 galaxy) towards that number.....Literally nothing.

Let's call religion $2,000 for 2,000 years old....Let's call the earth $4.5 billion for it's age. If you've got a debt of $4.5 billion - religion (to me) - is like making a one time payment of 2 grand....Great, but you still have a debt of $4.4 billion + 99 million + 998 thousand dollars. It's a joke.

You'd probably be fuming mad if you were waiting in the bank line for more than 10 minutes...And you'd piss your pants if you went on a roller coaster that did 40 miles per HOUR....Just to put some of these phenomenal astronomical speeds and times into perspective..

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Silly website (creation.com) Tricks are for kids!

[fozzie 41]

Evolution does not need to be at odds with creationism. Why can't god have created the spark that started the first life? Why can't that be intelligent design, something that can evolve and adapt to it's surroundings? Sounds more intelligent than 'intelligent design' to me.

[BishopM 114]

When I was at the University and studying for my undergrad in religion, we had to study this topic in depth. In the end, I had to reject it.

Yet, I admire the faith of those who cling to the concept.

Blessings to the thread,

BishopM

[BishopM 114]

Danno, we are a little tiny microscopic rock.

Humans have only been around for 400,000 years.

The dinos were around for 160 million (or 400,000 years 40 times in a row)...Honestly we've really only been technologically advanced for the last 50 years....50 years vs. 400,000 years vs. 160 million years vs. a planet 4.5 billion years old vs. a stupid fairy tale religion that is barely 2000 years old.

Do you understand that if you traveled at a constant speed of 186,000 miles a second it would take you 100,000 years to go from one end of the Milky Way galaxy to the other? How old are? 50 years? You'd be 1/10th of a half a percent way across with still another 99,950 years to go.

We are 1 galaxy among hundreds of billions.

Let's say the current deficit for 2011 was $500 billion....It'd be like paying $1 (1 galaxy) towards that number.....Literally nothing.

Let's call religion $2,000 for 2,000 years old....Let's call the earth $4.5 billion for it's age. If you've got a debt of $4.5 billion - religion (to me) - is like making a one time payment of 2 grand....Great, but you still have a debt of $4.4 billion + 99 million + 998 thousand dollars. It's a joke.

Brother LI - no offense, but this is some very very odd logic

If religion were 4.5 billion years old would that change your paradigm? I'll go one further, what if God was/is 4.5 years old...OR...if God is older than that...?

Quano...

[웃 910]

Brother LI - no offense, but this is some very very odd logic

If religion were 4.5 billion years old would that change your paradigm? I'll go one further, what if God was/is 4.5 years old...OR...if God is older than that...?

Quano...

Actually it would change things a little bit and be more credible. You don't find it strange that humans have been roaming the earth for 400,000 years but God/Jesus/Christianity has only been around for a minuscule 2000 years? It discredits religion. You can't have humans around for 400,000 years and then Jesus pop up 2,000 years ago and it is the real deal religion. It'd be like in the year 402,011 AD (400,000 years from now) a new religion pops up and it's to be taken seriously...

If "God" was born in 2007 (4.5 years ago) then...well...ummm... I don't understand this one

Edited September 1, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[BishopM 114]

Even in the earliest of cave drawings from 20-30,000 years ago, there is evidence of a higher conciousness...God, per se. I don't know if we have any earlier human evidence...but, I believe that God and the higher conciousness has been a part of man since the beginning. Only Christianity is 2000 or so years old, double that for Judiasm, and double that ++ for Hinduism...and these are only the KNOWN religions! My point is that mankind, in my opinion, has been staring up into space at God for as long as he has been staring up into space at the stars. Its what we do as humans. If you want proof, look at your own self...and your own 'staring into space'.

Blessings Brother LI!

[The_Dude 1,142]

Evolution does not need to be at odds with creationism. Why can't god have created the spark that started the first life? Why can't that be intelligent design, something that can evolve and adapt to it's surroundings? Sounds more intelligent than 'intelligent design' to me.

There is no scientific element to creationism or intelligent design. When your reference material is an unsubstantiated work of science fiction, and you are limited to the tenets contained within, there is no scientific methodology.

[BishopM 114]

There is no scientific element to creationism or intelligent design. When your reference material is an unsubstantiated work of science fiction, and you are limited to the tenets contained within, there is no scientific methodology.

I think that evolution does not need to be in direct opposition to creationism at all. Certainly I believe that God has put an 'intelligent design' in all of us! However, as you've correctly pointed out, the major major major flaw with creatism as taught by the OPs post is that attempts to defend the 'young earth theory'...eg, the world is only as old as the Bible tell us it is, which is around 6000 years or so. The young earth theory is completely unscientific and derived only from a selected interpretation of the Bible. This particular interpretation of the Bible is

Blessings - BishopM

[The_Dude 1,142]

I think that evolution does not need to be in direct opposition to creationism at all. Certainly I believe that God has put an 'intelligent design' in all of us! However, as you've correctly pointed out, the major major major flaw with creatism as taught by the OPs post is that attempts to defend the 'young earth theory'...eg, the world is only as old as the Bible tell us it is, which is around 6000 years or so. The young earth theory is completely unscientific and derived only from a selected interpretation of the Bible. This particular interpretation of the Bible is

Blessings - BishopM

I find it funny, that now some religions have finally begun to acknowledge that even within the last 100 years, there is evidence of evolution, and even try to incorporate it into their teachings. They are at odds with the evolution theory of the beginning of mankind. Nice try to add some legitimacy to their argument while denying the major focus of the dispute between the two sides. With regards to the origins of man, creationism is definitely at odds with evolution theory. However, there is no scientific method to creationism, so it should never be taught as a legitimate science.

[웃 910]

Even in the earliest of cave drawings from 20-30,000 years ago, there is evidence of a higher conciousness...God, per se. I don't know if we have any earlier human evidence...but, I believe that God and the higher conciousness has been a part of man since the beginning. Only Christianity is 2000 or so years old, double that for Judiasm, and double that ++ for Hinduism...and these are only the KNOWN religions! My point is that mankind, in my opinion, has been staring up into space at God for as long as he has been staring up into space at the stars. Its what we do as humans. If you want proof, look at your own self...and your own 'staring into space'.

Blessings Brother LI!

When you stare into space it becomes overwhelmingly clear that something like "God" is just petty.

You can fit 1.3 million of these earths inside the sun. There are so many stars out there - a good analogy is if you tried to go to every ocean floor, every beach, every lake, every river, every place on earth where there is sand....And you individually picked up each grain of sand one by one.....And then repeated the process 10 to 30 times in a row.

Just mind boggling.

When you see the size of VY Canis Majoris (the largest star in the universe) and you compare it to the size of the sun - knowing the sun represents 1.3 million earths (a number that we cannot even begin to comprehend) - it becomes very clear that something called "god" is just a petty laughable joke.

You can travel for thousands and thousands and millions and billions of years (not at 50 miles an hour..but the speed of light) and for comparison (probably a bad one) - it'd be like only having stepped out your front door and went to the mailbox...

When you sort of get (impossible to even partially grasp) the sizes, the speeds, and the times of the universe it becomes evident that a religion made up 30,000 years ago (realistically less than 4000 years ago) by people that have been around for 400,000 years, in a place called earth that was born 4.5 billion years ago. Considering earth is like 1 grain of sand within our Milky Way galaxy.

A galaxy so large it takes 100,000 light years to "run" from one end to the other. Full with 100s and 100s of billions of stars.

When you look at some of the sizes of those stars compared to our sun it becomes even more clear that we are nothing.

And these are just a handful of hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy (1 galaxy among hundreds of billions of more galaxies).

"God" being every where, knowing everything, loving everyone, giving us a happy place to spend eternity in (or a sad place to spend eternity) - Is. Extremely. Petty. And. Childish.