15 Questions for Evolutionists

[betsy]

The 15 questions on this topic were listed by Creation Ministries International for its grass-roots movement to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution. The Question Evolution! campaign focuses on these 15 questions that evolutionists cannot adequately answer.

Before you answer the question(s), please refer to the detailed explanation for each question by clicking here:

http://creation.com/15-questions

1. How did life originate?

2. How did the DNA code originate?

3. How could mutationsaccidental 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?

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

8. How did sex originate?

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

10. How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

12. Why is evolutionary just-so story-telling tolerated?

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

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?

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 cant teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught?

[betsy]

First it was Richard Dawkins. Now, it's PZ Myers?

Will PZ Myers debate Vox Day? And, on the Question Evolution campaign

Vox Day established The PZ Myers Memorial Debate which is titled as such in order to bring attention to the dedicated to the short-lived, but inglorious debating career of its namesake. Via this forum he has challenged any atheist do debate his contention which is:

"that there is not only substantial evidence for the existence of gods, but that the logic and the evidence in support of the existence of gods is superior to the logic and the evidence for the nonexistence of them."

PZ Myers has, again and again, refused to debate Day for examples see:

http://www.examiner.com/article/will-pz-myers-debate-vox-day-and-on-the-question-evolution-campaign

Another big mouth on the run?

Edited March 17, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

1. How did life originate?

2. How did the DNA code originate?

3. How could mutationsaccidental 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?

4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as evolution, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?

5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

8. How did sex originate?

9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

10. How do living fossils remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?

11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?

12. Why is evolutionary just-so story-telling tolerated?

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

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?

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 cant teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught?

Besty, if you're interested you should sign up for a biology 101 course at your nearest university institution.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

If you cant teach religion in science classes, why is evolution taught?

Betsy, I have no opinion on god and the creation of the universe, however, even if the universe was created by god, god cannot be part of any scientific explanation for the origin of life. This is because science is about developing theories that can explain nature without resorting to a 'god did it excuse'.

These theories do not have to be perfect - they just have to be useful when it comes to predicting future outcomes based on current knowledge. A good example of a wrong but useful scientific theory is the Bohr model of an atom which is taught today in all elementary schools. Evolution may be wrong but it is also extremely useful if one wants to understand how nature works. That is why it is and should be taught.

The real problem with evolution comes from people who are so insecure in their religious belief that they are unable to reconcile the needs of science with their desire to believe in a particular god.

Edited March 17, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

First it was Richard Dawkins. Now, it's PZ Myers?

http://www.examiner.com/article/will-pz-myers-debate-vox-day-and-on-the-question-evolution-campaign

Another big mouth on the run?

you tried the same lame game in attempting to claim Dawkins "is afraid to debate"... and now Myers? Of course Dawkins regularly debates prominent theologians, clergy, etc.. I quoted you Dawkins' own words as to why he chose not to debate your earlier favoured 'Gish-Galloping' reference.

now you're attempting to flog creationist extraordinaire Vox Day (Theodore Beale)... does it help your cause to know/highlight Beale is a member of the 'Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America'? As with Dawkins, you can read Myers own words as to why he won't debate Beale: Vox Day is One Sick Puppy

speaking of your latest proponent, does this example of 'Vox Day's' writings help your cause... from World Net Daily, no less? Where he aspires to a call for American courage to cleanse and expel "the ethnics"... but accepts and laments that since no one of prominent national stature is willing to "defend traditional American society", conflict avoidance will rule the day!!!

The reality is that America will proceed on one of two paths. The first is to embrace the conflict. If Americans can find the courage to consciously reject the myth of the melting pot and expel the Mexicans from the American Southwest, the Arabs from Detroit and the Somalis from Minneapolis, they can reclaim their traditional white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. This is highly improbable because so many descendants of that culture have rejected it in favor of the vibrancy of diversity while those who haven’t are far too frightened of criticism and social rejection to even articulate their thoughts.

Since no one of national stature is willing to openly defend traditional American society, that leaves only the second path of conflict avoidance. White Americans will continue to vote with their feet, retreating slowly but continuously before the inexorable wave of migrationary expansion. Encouraged by the frailty of American society and the fragility of myth-based American political culture, what are still currently the fringe views of the Aztlan revolutionaries will rapidly become the mainstream opinion of Mexican irredentists in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada.

oh my, Betsy... oh my!

[WWWTT]

Hi Betsy

I looked at the list and there is one that I find typically misleading.

Number 11.

If there is no God(or your deffinition of),it does not mean that there is no meaning to life.

Don't get me wrong,I believe in God.Just not your God!

Also,my God is between myself and my beliefs.I have no desire to fight the beliefs of others.

WWWTT

Edited March 17, 2013 by WWWTT

[betsy]

Betsy, I have no opinion on god and the creation of the universe, however, even if the universe was created by god, god cannot be part of any scientific explanation for the origin of life. This is because science is about developing theories that can explain nature without resorting to a 'god did it excuse'.

These theories do not have to be perfect - they just have to be useful when it comes to predicting future outcomes based on current knowledge. A good example of a wrong but useful scientific theory is the Bohr model of an atom which is taught today in all elementary schools. Evolution may be wrong but it is also extremely useful if one wants to understand how nature works. That is why it is and should be taught.

The real problem with evolution comes from people who are so insecure in their religious belief that they are unable to reconcile the needs of science with their desire to believe in a particular god.

Thank you for your response, TimG.

We're not talking about the atoms, though. Nor am I talking about scientific theory in general.

We're talking about the theory of evolution.

[TimG]

We're not talking about the atoms, though. Nor am I talking about scientific theory in general. We're talking about the theory of evolution.

So what? As I said, it makes no difference whether evolution is correct as it is taught today. The question that matters is 'is it a useful tool for understanding how biology works'? The answer is obviously yes. It also means that your questions are quite irrelevant and serve no purpose.

I also think that you need to examine the quality of your own religious faith because it is obviously not very good if you feel that the teaching of evolution in schools some how undermines it. True faith as I understand it would not be affected by such things.

Edited March 17, 2013 by TimG

[betsy]

you tried the same lame game in attempting to claim Dawkins "is afraid to debate"... and now Myers? Of course Dawkins regularly debates prominent theologians, clergy, etc.. I quoted you Dawkins' own words as to why he chose not to debate your earlier favoured 'Gish-Galloping' reference.

now you're attempting to flog creationist extraordinaire Vox Day (Theodore Beale)... does it help your cause to know/highlight Beale is a member of the 'Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America'? As with Dawkins, you can read Myers own words as to why he won't debate Beale: Vox Day is One Sick Puppy

speaking of your latest proponent, does this example of 'Vox Day's' writings help your cause... from World Net Daily, no less? Where he aspires to a call for American courage to cleanse and expel "the ethnics"... but accepts and laments that since no one of prominent national stature is willing to "defend traditional American society", conflict avoidance will rule the day!!!

oh my, Betsy... oh my!

That long-winded response must translate to meaning: "I cannot find any answers. Therefore, deflect. Try to change the channel."

There's nothing lame about my claim that Dawkins was afraid to debate. Any thinking sensible person can easily see why Dawkins abandoned his book to be shredded...he knew he couldn't defend it. Simple as that.

So, if you don't have any answers to the questions, I'll just ignore you. I'm not interested in your opinion.

[betsy]

So what? As I said, it makes no difference whether evolution is correct as it is taught today. The question that matters is 'is it a useful tool for understanding how biology works'? The answer is obviously yes. It also means that your questions are quite irrelevant and serve no purpose.

I also think that you need to examine the quality of your own religious faith because it is obviously not very good if you feel that the teaching of evolution in schools some how undermines it. True faith as I understand it would not be affected by such things.

Eh?

If you want to talk about the usefulness of biology....create your own topic. You find my topic irrelevant because you're spouting off an irrelevant issue to the topic.

If you have no answers to the questions, I understand. It's stated, these are questions that evolutionists couldn't adequately respond to.....that's why they call them, a "challenge!" I'm not twisting your arms to answer....so you needn't have to worry about it. I've shown you courtesy by thanking you for your response. But while you're in my thread, stick to the topic please.

[waldo]

That long-winded response must translate to meaning: "I cannot find any answers. Therefore, deflect. Try to change the channel."

There's nothing lame about my claim that Dawkins was afraid to debate. Any thinking sensible person can easily see why Dawkins abandoned his book to be shredded...he knew he couldn't defend it. Simple as that.

So, if you don't have any answers to the questions, I'll just ignore you. I'm not interested in your opinion.

I'm sorry to have put unwanted perspective on your latest creationist debate slayer! I was sure you would try to defend his wild ranting for white supremacy!

as for Dawkins, his quoted words speak for themselves as to why he chose not to debate your reference... as does his long history of debate engagement with theologians/clergy. Just because someone chooses not to engage one of your favoured and self-proclaimed "debate slayers", that does not automatically allow you to project your summary assessments.

[TimG]

If you have no answers to the questions, I understand. It's stated, these are questions that evolutionists couldn't adequately respond to.....that's why they call them, a "challenge!"

You miss the point. You call them a "challenge". I say they are irrelevant. If people don't respond it is because they think they are irrelevant. You are beating up on strawman. If you want to understand why they are irrelevant questions that should be ignored then you should make more of an effort to understand my posts.

[betsy]

Hi Betsy

I looked at the list and there is one that I find typically misleading.

Number 11.

If there is no God(or your deffinition of),it does not mean that there is no meaning to life.

Don't get me wrong,I believe in God.Not just your God!

Also,my God is between myself and my beliefs.I have no desire to fight the beliefs of others.

WWWTT

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins.

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins

Here is an interesting article:

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose

by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. *

http://www.icr.org/article/3513/

Nihilism promotes that life is without meaning or intrinsic value, or purpose.

Btw, do you believe that we're here just by random chance?

Edited March 17, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Thank you for your response, TimG.

We're not talking about the atoms, though. Nor am I talking about scientific theory in general.

We're talking about the theory of evolution.

You want to talk about the theory of evolution, but you don't want to talk about the science behind evolution.

Also from your list we can stop at #1.

Evolution does not deal with how life was created, it deals with things after life was created.

Another fantastic troll thread by Betsy. Same ol as the other threads, but yet she is like that boxing ring contender that just won't stay down no matter how much they have been beaten.

[waldo]

... to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution.

perhaps you could offer your own understanding... your own position on, 'evolution vs. intelligent design vs. young earth creationism' - and where you agree/disagree with, say... for example, the Catholic Church's position on each.

[betsy]

perhaps you could offer your own understanding... your own position on, 'evolution vs. intelligent design vs. young earth creationism' - and where you agree/disagree with, say... for example, the Catholic Church's position on each.

Create your own topic. This thread is for these 15 questions.

[GostHacked]

Create your own topic. This thread is for these 15 questions.

Which have already been answered in about 15 of the threads you started on this topic.

[betsy]

You want to talk about the theory of evolution, but you don't want to talk about the science behind evolution.

Also from your list we can stop at #1.

Evolution does not deal with how life was created, it deals with things after life was created.

It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water. Edited March 17, 2013 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Create your own topic. This thread is for these 15 questions.

You can not be 'debated' with. Simple as that. You're not clear on your starting position yet alone what aspects of science you do 'believe in'. When confronted with a fossil...you grow silent...yet wonder where multitudes of transitional fossils have gone. So if you can state clearly for the group what position YOU actually hold...perhaps there will be 'debate'.

[betsy]

You're full of excuses!

I guess it's slim picking on-line? You can't find any answers?

Edited March 17, 2013 by betsy

[TimG]

It doesn’t matter how well one can or can’t explain how the first life could evolve, if you can’t explain how it got there in the first place, the theory is literally dead in the water.

You clearly do not understand what science is or how it works. The theory of gravity has been used for centuries to explain the natural world but there was no explanation for what created gravity. IOW - the validity of the theory of gravity does NOT require any understanding of why it is true. The same goes for evolution - it is useful even if we have no idea why life started. Edited March 17, 2013 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

You're full of excuses!

I guess it's slim picking on-line? You can't find any answers?

How old is the Earth?

[betsy]

You clearly do not understand what science is or how it works. The theory of gravity has been used for centuries to explain the natural world but there was no explanation for what created gravity. IOW - the validity of the theory of gravity does NOT require any understanding of why it is true. The same goes for evolution - it is useful even if we have no idea why life started.

Either deal with the questions...or you're deliberately trying to get this thread off-topic.

[betsy]

How old is the Earth?

Deal with the questions, DOP. If not, then please don't try to disrupt my thread.

[waldo]

... to challenge the anti-Christian dogma of evolution.

perhaps you could offer your own understanding... your own position on, 'evolution vs. intelligent design vs. young earth creationism' - and where you agree/disagree with, say... for example, the Catholic Church's position on each.

Create your own topic. This thread is for these 15 questions.

are you refusing to debate me? Are you, as you say, "on the run"... are you another?

First it was Richard Dawkins. Now, it's PZ Myers?

Another big mouth on the run?