15 Questions for Evolutionists

[DogOnPorch]

Mighty AC, still on the microbes and matter.

You are forgetting one important thing, why you cannot make the comparison between matter/microbes and origin of life/evolution.

Answer this questions:

Are matter and microbes not concluded as fact?

Is anyone refuting their existence?

In quantum physics and cosmology, matter is not an assured fact and particles can be made from 'nothing'. The recently discovered Higgs Particle was the result of bombarding the suspected Higgs Field with high energy. A chip of space. Hawking Radiation is another example. This is particles and anti-particles produced by conditions near the event horizon of black holes. The Uncertainty Principle also shows us that at a quantum level, all bets are off re: matter's certainty...that being: we can never be sure of the exact nature of a given particle in all dimensions. Quantum Entanglement seems to allow transmission of quantum states over unlimited distances at speeds greater than the speed of light. The act of measuring a quantum particle can also affect its quantum state. For example...why does a photon behave like a particle when you're measuring it but acts like a wave when you don't?

While I'm a mere layman at quantum physics, there's a lot of 'splaining to do by Creationists as to how this all fits into their 6 Day version of the creation of everything...everything I assume would include quantum particles...etc. Will betsy simply write off Quantum Physics as unimportant like fossils or non-existent like continental drift?

Edited March 20, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[Sleipnir]

Are matter and microbes not concluded as fact?

No, because the way I see it those terms are what we classified things as - you need to make a statement regarding matter and/or microbes to be either factual or not.

Otherwise it would equivalent to saying, are apples concluded as fact? What the heck does an apple has to do with being a fact?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

No, because the way I see it those terms are what we classified things as - you need to make a statement regarding matter and/or microbes to be either factual or not.

Otherwise it would equivalent to saying, are apples concluded as fact? What the heck does an apple has to do with being a fact?

Eh?

Edited March 21, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Mighty AC, let's recap what was said.

betsy, on 19 Mar 2013 - 12:31, said:

You stated: The theory of gravity doesn't have to explain the creation of matter and the germ theory doesn't have to explain the creation of microbes. Other theories do that.

Thus I replied to you in that context. Matter and microbes are both proven.

Mighty AC

How are matter and microbes proven? Please expand.

Of course I fell off my chair with that question! You were giving some lectures about RNA, DNA...etc. and yet, as shown by your question you don't understand what microbes are, of all things!

So let me inform you how microbes are proven.

Our Challenge: How are we going to solve the case of what a microbe is when they're so small they're invisible to us?

Microbe is a term for tiny creatures that individually are too small to be seen with the unaided eye. Microbes include bacteria (back-tear-ee-uh), archaea (are-key-uh), fungi (fun-jeye) and protists (pro-tists). You've probably heard of bacteria and fungi before. Archaea are bacteria-like creatures that have some traits not found in any true bacteria. Protists include primitive algae (al-gee), amoebas (ah-me-buhs), slime molds and protozoa (pro-toe-zoh-uh). We can also include viruses (vye-rus-is) as a major type of microbe, though there is a debate as to whether viruses can be considered living creatures or not.

To solve the case of what a microbe is, we have to use tools such as high-power microscopes. Let's zoom in on some microbes and see what a few of these strange creatures look like.

http://www.microbeworld.org/what-is-a-microbe

I remember peering through a microscope in high school. I've seen grade school children (probably even kindergartens) recently on tv peering through a microspcope as they were being taught about bacteria and germs.

How do you expect me to take your words seriously??? No offense - but how do you expect me to even bother, after this surprising revelation from you?

Therefore, I urge you to watch those video rebutts given here: http://creation.com/15-questions

The explanations are simplified, and given in laymen's terms - taking into consideration the expected and understandable ignorance of most readers and debators like us on the subject.

Edited March 21, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, I'll try explain this to you again. We both know microbes exist. We both know life exists. We both know matter exists. You even gave examples of how you know that life exists.

You believe the Theory of Gravity, which explains that physical bodies made of matter attract in proportion to their mass, does not have to explain the origins of matter because matter obviously exists. That makes complete sense.

You believe that the Germ Theory of Disease, which explains how some infectious diseases are caused by microbes, does not have to explain the origins of microorganisms because microbes obviously exist. That makes complete sense.

However, you then go on to state that The Theory of Evolution, which explains how organisms diversify, must also explain the origins of the organisms? That does not make sense. You've seen life, you know that it exists, you know that it changes and diversifies.

Why then does a theory which, explains the diversification of something that obviously exists, have to perform the additional task of explaining the origin of life? You don't expect the Theory of Gravity to explain the origins of matter and you don't expect the Germ Theory to also explain the origins of life.

In short, the origins of life or the universe have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Mighty AC

[Mighty AC]

Therefore, I urge you to watch those video rebutts given here: http://creation.com/15-questions

I have watched video 1. It has nothing to do with evolution, and it contains countless fallacies, errors and willful misrepresentations but, we can still discuss it if you like. Just post the questions and points you find compelling here, and I will comment.

[betsy]

Betsy, I'll try explain this to you again. We both know microbes exist. We both know life exists. We both know matter exists. You even gave examples of how you know that life exists.

You believe the Theory of Gravity, which explains that physical bodies made of matter attract in proportion to their mass, does not have to explain the origins of matter because matter obviously exists. That makes complete sense.

You believe that the Germ Theory of Disease, which explains how some infectious diseases are caused by microbes, does not have to explain the origins of microorganisms because microbes obviously exist. That makes complete sense.

However, you then go on to state that The Theory of Evolution, which explains how organisms diversify, must also explain the origins of the organisms? That does not make sense. You've seen life, you know that it exists, you know that it changes and diversifies.

Why then does a theory which, explains the diversification of something that obviously exists, have to perform the additional task of explaining the origin of life? You don't expect the Theory of Gravity to explain the origins of matter and you don't expect the Germ Theory to also explain the origins of life.

In short, the origins of life or the universe have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Why?

Because evolution is like a chain....all stemming from the first link. You need to explain about that first link.

And the whole chain-gang stemming from that first link is being refuted.

Furthermore, the links doesn't even show they're chained together. What evolution has are some loose links. With millions of fossils having been discovered for centuries - not a single transitional fossil is found!

MILLIONS OF FOSSILS, and yet NOT A SINGLE ONE found as the proof of evolution.

Edited March 21, 2013 by betsy

[Canuckistani]

Why?

Because evolution is like a chain....all stemming from the first link. You need to explain about that first link.

So species just drop fully formed from the sky? Does God put us all asleep while this happens? You need to explain how Intelligent Design works. I gave you the opportunity in my How does Intelligent Design work post, but you turned tail because you can't. How do new species arrive on earth when the intelligent designer makes them? When God created the eye (apparently thought to complex by ID folks to have evolved) how and when did God distribute all the animals with eyes on the planet?

Edited March 21, 2013 by Canuckistani

[Mighty AC]

Betsy, by that logic the Germ Theory also has to explain the origins of life and the Theory of Gravity has to explain the origins of matter. The Theory of Evolution is not a chain. It starts with life and ends with life. It does not begin, pre-life. Like gravity does not begin pre-matter.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Mighty AC

[The_Squid]

MILLIONS OF FOSSILS, and yet NOT A SINGLE ONE found as the proof of evolution.

Looks like someone refuses to look at all of the links that have been provided and still has no clue about what evolution even means.. I know the bible doesn't mention fossils and evolution, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.

[Mighty AC]

We know how life diversifies; but, we don't know for sure how it first formed. However, we are making serious progress on that front.

Scientists have demonstrated several types self replicating RNA molecules. These molecules perpetually replicate and even occasionally mutate and then continue to replicate. This is exciting because it shows that RNA can reproduce without the need of additional proteins and enzymes. The only problem at the time was that nucleic acids had to be present for the RNA molecules to form in the first place. See Article: RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time

Fortunately scientists have now demonstrated how nucleic acids can form easily from compounds and conditions readily available on a young earth. Hydrogen cyanide (just hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen) in the presence of copper and UV light will form Cytosine, a building block of RNA. Article: Simple Reaction Makes The Building Blocks Of Nucleic Acid

Scientists have now demonstrated a very simple natural pathway from readily available substances to the building blocks of life. This does not prove that life began in this fashion, but it is concrete evidence of a possible, realistic mechanism for the beginnings of life. I find this area of research fascinating.

[guyser]

Looks like someone refuses to look at all of the links that have been provided and still has no clue about what evolution even means.. I know the bible doesn't mention fossils and evolution, but this is getting a bit ridiculous.

No, someone purposely ignores anything that may contradict the idiocy ingrained in them by religious zealots. But hey, whatever floats that boat.

It was ridiculous the moment this thread was thought of.

[MightyAC]

Extreme devotion breeds this kind of delusion. Besides membership count there is no difference between a religion and a cult. If someone has swallowed a message hook, line and sinker...be it saviour space aliens following the Hale Bop commet or intelligent deisgn how do you get through to them? They mostly associate with like minded individuals so like tyrants their beliefs are almost always confirmed by their peers. Fortunately they are a dieing breed.

[betsy]

I guess when you lose your argument and can't defend your position - you aim for your opponent's belief. Why should that be surprising? After all, the sum of it all is that, it is faith against faith. Which brings us to Question #15:

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?

Answer: Because secularism rules right now. Is all.

Edited March 22, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Evolution is not secular. God created an evolutionary world and He shall smite those who try to diminish his accomplishments. Especially those who unrepentedly disobey His commandments and pretend to speak His Word.

Give Thanks and Praise.

[g_bambino]

I guess when you lose your argument and can't defend your position - you aim for your opponent's belief.

Um, it's always been about your belief.

[betsy]

I have watched video 1. It has nothing to do with evolution, and it contains countless fallacies, errors and willful misrepresentations but, we can still discuss it if you like. Just post the questions and points you find compelling here, and I will comment.

How can you tell when you didn't even know or understand what simple microbes are? And now you're critiquing scientific opinions? You're saying they're "fallacies, errors and wilfull misrepresentations?" Your comment ought to be in Cartoons and Lampoons!

Sorry Mighty AC........ but those blasted microbes exposed you!

[betsy]

Just to put the icing on the cake about your knowledge of microbes, you said:

mighty AC

Are you familiar with fossilization? Even a very large organism like yourself would be unlikely to leave a fossil record. Microbes are far less likely to become fossilized.

Well, here's what science has to say:

They are the oldest form of life on earth. Microbe fossils date back more than 3.5 billion years to a time when the Earth was covered with oceans that regularly reached the boiling point, hundreds of millions of years before dinosaurs roamed the earth.

http://www.microbeworld.org/what-is-a-microbe

[betsy]

mighty AC

Are you familiar with fossilization? Even a very large organism like yourself would be unlikely to leave a fossil record. Microbes are far less likely to become fossilized.

Yes I'm very much familiar with fossilization...but I don't think you are!

So, you're saying a large organsim my size would be unlikely to leave a fossil. First of all, what's size got to do with it?

Second:

Fossil Evidence

From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. With the rapid pace of new discoveries every year, this impressive sample means that even though some early human species are only represented by one or a few fossils, others are represented by thousands of fossils.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

So even you could leave a fossil....unless you opted for mummification.

Further basics on fossils from Science Kids:

Pictures of Fossils, Bones etc

Enjoy free pictures of dinosaur fossils, skeletons, bones and eggs. Fossils help scientists and researchers around the world understand more about dinosaurs, take a look at some of the awesome bones and skeletons they’ve discovered with our cool picture gallery. Find complete skeletons, dinosaur footprints, museum exhibitions, diagrams, facts and information related to all your favorite dinosaurs including Brachiosaurus, Tyrannosaurus rex, Allosaurus, Stegosaurus, Iguanodon and Triceratops.

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/pictures/dinosaurs/bones.html

So now it looks like you also don't know much - if anything at all - about fossils and fossilization.

What next? It's a good thing I didn't bother reading your lengthy replies.....whew! Perhaps I ought to backtrack and really read them. I might unearth and discover more "revelations!"

Edited March 23, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Of course you do realize what these did to your credibility as a debator on this subject - or anything that pertains to science. If you discuss about science-related subjects, you'll need to provide more than just a statement, and establish your credibility to convince me, or other sensible participants, that you do actually know and understand what you're on about. That is if you want to be taken seriously.

You think I'll ever forget about this? This will always haunt you.

Edited March 23, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

.

You think I'll ever forget about this? This will always haunt you.

My Lord and Saviour Jesus does not appreciate those who threaten others, break commandments without repentance, and disparage the great evolutionary world His Father created.

[GostHacked]

Here is how it goes.

People present evidence and back up their claims. Then Betsy says it is not evidence without proving why it is not evidence, using the god of the gaps argument to prevent any meaningful conversation going forward. I am gonna start hitting that report button more, obvious troll is getting too obvious.

[Canuckistani]

Of course you do realize what these did to your credibility as a debator on this subject - or anything that pertains to science. If you discuss about science-related subjects, you'll need to provide more than just a statement, and establish your credibility to convince me, or other sensible participants, that you do actually know and understand what you're on about. That is if you want to be taken seriously.

You think I'll ever forget about this? This will always haunt you.

You're discussing about science-related subjects. You have failed to establish any credibility on the matter what so ever. You've got some nerve.

[DogOnPorch]

Just to put the icing on the cake about your knowledge of microbes, you said:

Well, here's what science has to say:

http://www.microbeworld.org/what-is-a-microbe

Dome-shaped

stromatolites, averaging three feet high and four feet wide, populate the

shallow shore of an ancient sea 3 billion years ago. The Moon looms near the horizon,

much closer to the Earth than it is now and therefore appearing considerably

larger, but otherwise looking much like the moon we know today.

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/earth/01_precambrian/earth_01_precambrian_2200.htm

From this website...worth a visit.

http://www.arcadiastreet.com/cgvistas/aa_menu_thegraphics.htm

[betsy]

I stumbled onto this amusing list of things Evolutionists hate. This article is in reply to an article published by a pro-evolution propagandist that poked fun at people who believe in a literal 6-day creation. The author published a part of that article, "Things Creationists Hate," and he rebutted the sloppy points. This site gives an explanation for each.

Some of the things listed here are new to me.

Things Evolutionists Hate

• The Bible. Why won't it go away?
• God.
• Noah and the Ark.
• Natural Selection. This process, used to support evolutionary theory, actually works against it.
  Organisms naturally select creatures that are healthy and similiar to
  themselves. This has a preservative effect on species, not an evolutionary
  one.
• The Fossil Record. The fossils do not show a smooth gradiation from lower life to higher organisms.
  The reason we have the term "missing links" is because they are a fact of the fossil record.
• Uncomformities, Paracomformities. These are geological terms which are used to notate locations around the earth where the geological strata are "out of order" according to the expected evolutionary pattern. For example, when the most basic of sea-life is found sitting comfortably on top of strata containing "more evolved" organisms.
• Living Fossils. Creatures once thought extinct, that suddenly are found, alive and well. Yet
  oddly, made no appearance in the 'fossil record' for supposed millions of years!
  Now that is a disappearing act!
• Stasis. According to evolution, with enough time, species evolve. It just happens. Well,
  that is, except in those cases like the cockroach or the horseshoe crab, where
  it just doesn't.
• Laws of Nature. If all is a cosmic accident, why do we have "laws of nature"? Or for that
  matter, structure or order of any kind? Why have gravity, etc.? What about laws
  of civilization, such as "do not kill" "do not lie". Why shouldn't we? If
  evolution is true than none of this would matter, and the world around us would
  be governed by chaos and accident
• Honest Evolutionists. The "great quotes" archives of the creationists are stuffed with statements made
  by frustrated evolutionists who fessed up to the weaknesses in the theory. You
  can bet that some of them wish they had kept their traps shut.
• Heart Mountain "Thrust".
• Coelacanth. The "fish" that supposedly waddled onto the shore.
• Ancient Pottery
• Myths
• Chinese Language
• The Pyramids of Egypt
• Irreducible Complexity
• Horseshoe crabs
• Sir Richard Owen
• Evolution Approval Ratings
• Unborn Human Children
• Dark Skinned People
• Hiroshima
• The word "Theory."
• Piltdown Man.
• The Internet.
• Free Speech.
• Old Textbooks.
• Henry M. Morris.
• Megafauna.
• Amber.
• Ancient Textiles.
• Dragon Legends.
• Cataclysms, specifically floods.
• Dogs.
• Ernst Haeckel.
• Nebraska Man.
• Ancient Technology.
• Mayan Blue Paint.
• Cockroaches.
• Horse Evolution.
• Sir John Eccles.
• Ancient History.
• Flood Geology.
• The Human Eye.
• Bombardier Beetle.
• The Giraffe's Long neck.
• The Dawn Redwood Tree.
• Metamorphosis.
• Honey Bees.
• Mount St. Helens.
• Mass Extinction.
• The Law of Biogenesis.
• Creationists Museums
• Answers In Genesis
• ICR. Institute for Creation Research
• Right and Wrong.
• Supercroc.
• Fakes, frauds and Forgeries. The evolutionary "proof" handbook is fraught with them. Some were sloppy, some were mistakes, others were downright lies intended to change the mind of the general public to embrace common ancestry. Sadly, for the most part it was a success. Still, over time, many of these frauds have been slowly coming to light.
• Flash Frozen Mammoths.
• Fossil Trees in Antartica.
• The Matterhorn.
• The Coso Artifact.
• Watches.
• The "Ararat Anomaly."
• Aquatic Mammals.
• Common Sense.
• Objective Research.
• Dust On the Moon.
• Stalagmites.
• Lady Hope.
• Mutant Frogs.
• Peppered Moths.
• Scientific Illiteracy.
• Bird Wings.
• 100 Scientists Against PBS.
• Other Scientists.
• Creation. Response to PBS Evolution series.
• 50 Scientists.
• Bad Backs.
• Famous Painters.
• The Sexes.
• The Burgess Shale.
• The Human Conscience.
• Mathematical Probabilities.
• Insect Hi-Fi.
• Oil.
• Human Skull.
• Rapid Burials.
• Beets.
• Living Trilobites.
• Jonathan Well's 10 Questions.
• Rapid Growth Stalactites.

http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy