15 Questions For The Evolutionists Of AH.com

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.”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?

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.”3

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?

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”.6 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.”7

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.”8

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 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.”12

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?

so you can't respond logically when confronted with paradox's within you're belief? got it!

come get me logic people who think i'm the delusional one; answer something

Oh man, I was just talking about how much I hate bananas too.

Nice copy paste, brah. I could tell by the distinct lack of spelling errors and extraneous punctuation.
There is no logical conflict. Basically, your feeble questions make the argument that complexity = God. It doesn't. You fail. Go away.

show me your sound logical reasoning; please. i beg thee

Where you at jet?))) come get me

well either way, then answer the questions with your own research then if you're feeling outclassed

show me something in relation to these questions if your more logically sound then me

Reading creationist publications about evolution is a very bad way to inform yourself about it. A little research would answer 14 of your questions very quickly, the 15th being nonsequitur and moronic. Most non-creationists won't insult you for believing something they don't, but this thread is flamebait.

Also, Ray Comfort, the banana is a product of artificial selection, we made it, and your mustache is ugly.

classic jet. only got pics when he has nothing

I know what you're getting at Kooljack, but the inability of science to answer any one of those question does not prove that God exists, just as scientific evidence cannot disprove that God exists. The only thing science can disprove is one's preconceived notions of how God operates. This is why many creationists fight so hard against science sometimes, because it doesn't fit into a lot of people's little box of what they choose (or were told) to believe. Stop making religion vs. science a thing. It doesn't need to be.

You obviously fail at thinking critically for yourself since you had to resort to copy/pasting rhetoric from some shithole creationist website so why the *** should anyone cater to your need to be spoonfed information?

It's not just that it doesn't need to be a thing, it can't be a thing. Science and Religion aren't opposing theories. One is the study of the natural world with a fixed methodology, the other is a way to comfort people who can't cope with the unknown.

its not about being a thing of science vs religion. science affirms creationism. Its about logical reasoning. lets see your logical reasoning in regards to the subject matter.

when a prominent member of this community starts calling people delusional and stupid based on their beliefs expect to be called out on.

He attacked me personally with accusations of being illogical; so here i am asking for him to reason with me.... but all he can do is post pics.... awesome

When faced with tough questions regarding his own logic he has not one single shred of reasoning to answer me with

There is far more to religion than coping with the unknown, but I get what you're trying to say.

Lets see the credibility of what you say Jet; answer the questions with some reasoning. I want to see your superior reasoning in action against my delusions.. please pretty please?

You can't force a deep discussion with people. If you came here for a thoughtful analysis of the subject matter with people who treat others with respect despite having differing opinions, you're in the wrong forums.

Aww, Jet, I think you made a friend!

If you really cared about the answers to your questions, which I sincerely doubt that you do, an excellent resource is http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Question_Evolution!_-_CMI's_Rebuttals_to_General_Objections_to_the_15_Questions.

There's too much stupid in your posts, It's dumber than Altima, several times dumber, it's an accomplishment really.

I'm going to start with the fact that just because we don't know something, doesn't mean "god did it" is an acceptable or logical answer, it's fine if you want to believe that, but keep that nonsense to yourself.

Your #2 is just pure retardedness, more so than #1.

#3: not only do you have inaccurate information there, just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it was magic.

#4: natural selection is a process by which we understand evolution to take place, I know this has been explained to you already, and it's not an idea that originates in "intelligent designed", the rest of your crap there is just HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE.

#5: I'm not a biochemist, ask one to get this answer, I'm sure they'll be happy to tell you.

#6: again: retardation and stupidity

#7: see my response to #5

#8: who cares? it's fun.

#9: lol, again your stupidity is showing: every fossil is a potential transitional fossil, either a species will evolve or die out.

#10: again, stupidity and pure ignorance of science

#11: one could argue that people shouldn't be learning any type of philosophy in science class, unless that science class is studying philosophies. If this is some sort of twisted argument to teach belief as fact, well you failed miserably yet again.

#12: human society is a very weird experiment, we don't practice natural selection as a rule of law. Otherwise we wouldn't make tags like this:



Whether or not that's a good thinng can be up for debate.

#13: allso see number 5.

#14: wrong, science is about observations, experiments are merely for observational purpose.

#15: three's nothing fundamentally religious about natural selection or evolution, but again: nice try.


you got any other stupid questions that you should know if you made it to the 4th grade?

How do creationists answer these questions besides "A wizard did it"?

ftfy

I want to return this product, I am of the conclusion that it's defective.

You just refuse to admit the perfection of it's design.

can't have it, womenz onry.

finally some shreds of reasoning, but damn were they shallow or what

not really, I can only think of like 1-2 liberals on the whole site.

What's wrong with you Bart?!