15 Questions for Evolutionists

[DogOnPorch]

Did you hear that from Video #6?

The SETI program (Search For Extraterestrial Intelligence) - looks for complex coded signals that are not going to occur naturally. That implies that we can tell the difference between what would be natural or that what would be intelligently designed. For example, a coded language system.

...and what was one of the first things they found? Hmmmmmmm?

[betsy]

Which would show other intelligent life out there, and does not support evidence for a designer/creator/god.

Read again.

[Michael Hardner]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 8:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4

Betsy - you do have to do better than just post a video - you realize that, I'm sure.

[betsy]

Mighty AC

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

We do have countless transitional fossils. You are aware that fossilization itself is a rare event though right? You and the creationist producers of your questions list should read up on this.

There are over 20,000 species of trilobites alone - and that's just one type of living thing! Can you imagine how many millions of fossils have been discovered???

If there are millions of fossils around - they couldn't be that rare!

Well....for all the MILLIONS of fossils they've been unearthing for several centuries to the present, how come not a single transitional fossil is found?

And yet, NOT A SINGLE ONE?

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[Sleipnir]

I don't think such an analogy would be particularly helpful given your audience.

She hasn't respond so I guess you're right...

[DogOnPorch]

Seti Hint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jocelyn_Bell_Burnell

Well....for all the fossils they've been unearthing for several centuries to the present, how come not a single transitional fossil is found?

Ummmmm...would you even know a 'transitional fossil' if you see one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avimimus_portentosus

[GostHacked]

There are over 20,000 species of trilobites alone - and that's just one type of living thing! Can you imagine how many millions of fossils have been discovered???

If there are millions of fossils around - they couldn't be that rare!

Well....for all the MILLIONS of fossils they've been unearthing for several centuries to the present, how come not a single transitional fossil is found?

And yet, NOT A SINGLE ONE?

How do you fit all 20,000 species of trilobites on an ark?

[GostHacked]

Read again.

What do you want me to read, I broke my biblical glasses some time ago.

[DogOnPorch]

Trilobites didn't need no steenkin' Ark.

[betsy]

Betsy - you do have to do better than just post a video - you realize that, I'm sure.

Actually I missed to see the videos already included in the url given at the OP. Thanks to Gosthacked for pointing that out - I double checked. I was taking them out from another venue that shows only the video options.

So, for those who'd want to see the rebuttals to various responses to each question, please click here:

http://creation.com/15-questions

The video rebuttal option is located at the bottom of each question. They've got them from 1-15.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Actually I missed to see the videos already included in the url given at the OP. Thanks to Gosthacked for pointing that out - I double checked. I was taking them out from another venue that shows only the video options.

So, for those who'd want to see the rebuttals to various responses to each question, please click here:

http://creation.com/15-questions

The video rebuttal option is located at the bottom of each question. They've got them from 1-15.

You should not have to have me point that out for you. I guess you had taken it on faith that they were unique sources, I had to go about it another way.

[betsy]

Going back to #9 again, in response to Mighty AC

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

We do have countless transitional fossils. You are aware that fossilization itself is a rare event though right? You and the creationist producers of your questions list should read up on this.

You mention, "rare event"...

Do you mean to say that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today?

Are you suggesting that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event—such as a globe-covering flood - that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today?

Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!

What a storm it must have been! News reports said that hundreds of giant jellyfish once lived about 500 million years ago, but were ‘stranded by a freakish tide or storm’ on an ancient beach. Sand later buried them, forming fossils.^1,2 With many specimens measuring over 50 cm (20 in) across, these are the biggest fossil jellyfish known.

Found in a Wisconsin sandstone quarry, it must have been an extraordinary set of circumstances that preserved them, geologists say, for fossilized impressions of jellyfish, which have no skeleton or other hard parts, are extremely uncommon.³

‘Preservation of a soft-bodied organism is incredibly rare, but a whole deposit of them is like finding your own vein of gold’, said James Hagadorn, one of the paleontologists who reported the find.^1,4 Also remarkable is that the rock was sandstone (i.e. the jellyfish were buried in sand which later ‘cemented’ into rock), rather than fine-grained rock like mudstone. In sand, buried jellyfish quickly break down because oxygen readily filters through interconnected air spaces between sand grains, allowing rapid decay. MORE....

http://creation.com/hundreds-of-jellyfish-fossils Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Matter was proven. Microorganisms are proven.

Life is proven. However, we don't know the origins for either matter or life.

Yes, evolution definitely has to explain the origin of life - since it's from that very origin of life that evolution is supposed to have begun.

Wrong. Evolution deals with the diversification of life. Life does have to exist, but evolution does not have to explain it. By the logic of your creationist mentors, every theory would have to start with the origin of the universe; which, is of course ridiculous.

How did they know that the universe is stretching? That the universe had a begining? How did they know that there are mountain ranges and trenches under the ocean? How did they find out what a human body is made of? How did they find out how fine-tuned the universe is? The complexities of the cells, the dna, etc.,

All those lend support to design by a Designer rather than just existing by pure accident!

We don't know that the universe had a beginning. We know our area of the universe is expanding, but we don't even know if the "big bang" was the formation of the universe or just a massive expansion event that seeded one section of it with matter.

Interpreting the 'stretching curtain' in Isaiah 40:22 as an expanding universe is one hell of a stretch. Confirmation bias will do that though.

Anyway, my question is how do complex processes lend support to a designer? Do inefficient and flawed aspects of animal physiology then suggest the opposite? If we are attempting to use reason here, how can something you find too complex or improbable lend support to something far more complex and improbable?

[betsy]

Mighty AC

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

Some organisms have remained well adapted to their environments and have not yet become extinct.

They're not asking about extinction. We're talking evolution, remember?

The question is, how did they remain unchanged?

Evolutionists believe that environments changed drastically over millions of years, while some creatures in these environments didn’t change? Why is that?

We're not just talking about the temperature, or pressure, or salinity when we talk about the unchanged creature's environment.

How could these species not change in light of the species evolving around them, some of which, including bacteria, would be trying to make a meal out of the species in stasis?

You have to consider that the creature's predators and their prey species (if carnivores) or plant food (if plant-eating predators) are very much part of that environment!

There are also the creature's parasites and other pathogens! Therefore, it's really ludicrous that the environment would remain constant for eons!

There are species of all of these categories not only migrating in and out of the area, but also supposedly undergoing all this evolutionary change themselves.

So, how did they remain unchanged?

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 2:

I'm not going to watch a 20+ minute video on every point. If you have watched the videos, post your counter arguments here and I will respond.

[betsy]

Evolutionary Stasis

Double-Speak and Propaganda

by Philip Bell

The term ‘double-speak’ is often used derisively of politicians, journalists and spokespersons for large corporations. People are guilty of double-speak if they use language that serves to distort or disguise the facts.

Two recent scientific reports contained statements that fit this definition, even though the writers probably had no ulterior motive (discussed below). At other times, certain evolutionists are guilty of intentionally using double-speak to subvert biblical truth and to bolster popular belief in the evolutionary worldview.

http://creation.com/evolutionary-stasis

[betsy]

I'm not going to watch a 20+ minute video on every point. If you have watched the videos, post your counter arguments here and I will respond.

The videos provide various rebuttals from various responders. There are quite a few who took on the challenge. You don't have to watch the videos - but they are made available for those who truly want to have an objective look at the issue(s).

I am however, rebutting your response(s) here.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

The videos provide various rebuttals from various responders. There are quite a few who took on the challenge. You don't have to watch the videos - but they are made available for those who truly want to have an objective look at the issue(s).

I am however, rebutting your response(s) here.

The videos suck.

[DogOnPorch]

The videos suck.

[betsy]

Life is proven. However, we don't know the origins for either matter or life.Wrong. Evolution deals with the diversification of life. Life does have to exist, but evolution does not have to explain it. By the logic of your creationist mentors, every theory would have to start with the origin of the universe; which, is of course ridiculous.

We don't know that the universe had a beginning. We know our area of the universe is expanding, but we don't even know if the "big bang" was the formation of the universe or just a massive expansion event that seeded one section of it with matter.

Interpreting the 'stretching curtain' in Isaiah 40:22 as an expanding universe is one hell of a stretch. Confirmation bias will do that though.

Anyway, my question is how do complex processes lend support to a designer? Do inefficient and flawed aspects of animal physiology then suggest the opposite? If we are attempting to use reason here, how can something you find too complex or improbable lend support to something far more complex and improbable?

Well, if you insist on your opinion, what can I say?

To discount the beginning, is, what is illogical. It's been explained why we cannot dismiss the ORIGIN of LIFE, especially when we're talking about the diversification of LIFE!

What more when you're talking common descent - well, who's the very first "ancestor?" From what did we begin?

What if we want to post it on ancestry.ca?

I don't know how to simplify it any further.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Well, if you insist on your opinion, what can I say?

To discount the beginning, is, what is illogical. It's been explained why we cannot dismiss the ORIGIN of LIFE, especially when we're talking about the diversification of LIFE!

What more when you're talking common descent - well, who's the very first ancestor?? From what did we begin?

I don't know how to simplify it any further.

Reported.

[betsy]

Mighty AC

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

Much of our advancements in altruism and morality have nothing to do with chemical or biological changes. They are the result of accumulated knowledge.

Of course it does have something to do with evolution. Evolution is as much about philosophy as science.

There are branches of evolutionary ‘science’ called sociobiology, human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology, which attempt to explain human society, love, morals, religion, altruism, etc., purely in evolutionary terms.

If evolution were true, then there is no basis for right and wrong.

Below is from a debate between two evolutionists. Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Evolution: no morality (Dawkins)

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today 30(1):62, Jan-Feb 1997.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

But I do know. It's been designed by the Designer.

No you don't know. Strong belief does not equate to knowledge.

So where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life?

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.

Scientists have demonstrated in lab, how RNA enzymes can replicate themselves indefinitely, without proteins or any other cellular components. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Viruses are RNA organism-like entities that still exist today. They of course do not replicate themselves but are an example of very simple, primitive structures that have managed to get their genetic information copied in some form or another. It seems that viruses even played a role in shaping the genome of modern animals like us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

[The_Squid]

If evolution were true, then there is no basis for right and wrong.

At least you have finally come clean with why you would deny scientific facts...

The bible is not very old. Why did humans cooperate with each other, be friends, form groups, raise their children and love each other for so many thousands of years before the bible was ever even thought of?

I'll answer for you Betsy, because your answer will just be some spam....

They did it because right and wrong is inherent in most humans without needing to read it in a book. If you want to get into perhaps why this is so, go here: http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Many persons conceive evolution as nothing more than a fiercely

competitive "struggle for existence." They render nature and culture

alike as governed by an unqualified "survival of the fittest." Here,

the influence of biological determinism is discernible. However, once

one becomes aware of mutualisms between species, reciprocities among

individuals within a species, innate sympathies, the potentials of open

behavioral programs, social networks of reciprocity, punishments and

rewards, image scoring (or reputation), and the role of social contexts

in cooperation, the view of natural selection as universally "selfish"

seems deeply ill informed. In particular, humans establish their own

values at a psychological level. They establish their own laws at the

social level. Humans are not enslaved by some stereotyped "law of the

jungle"

[betsy]

Life is proven. However, we don't know the origins for either matter or life.

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.

Origin of matter and life points to a Designer. As being supported by science and Philosophy.

Interpreting the 'stretching curtain' in Isaiah 40:22 as an expanding universe is one hell of a stretch. Confirmation bias will do that though.

Something to think about:

The word, "stretches" appeared 11 times in various passages by more than one author in different time frames - and used in the right context of describing creation.

The word "expanding" got coined by the scientists only in 1929 (?)! It describes what they discovered. The factual phrase of God "stretches/stretched the heavens" is a whole lot older than science "expanding" term!

Now we find out that science gives an accurate description by using the word, "stretching," instead of "expanding."

Let me begin by saying that "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic!

A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching".

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

Check topic, The Bible, on page 4 (Expanding Universe), page 7 (EXPANDING UNIVERSE: Science uses the word, "STRETCHING/STRETCHES/STRETCHED), page 10 (Curvature of Space)

Anyway, my question is how do complex processes lend support to a designer? Do inefficient and flawed aspects of animal physiology then suggest the opposite? If we are attempting to use reason here, how can something you find too complex or improbable lend support to something far more complex and improbable?

The more complex it is - and incredibly organized and "finely-tuned" - the more it supports that it cannot have been anything but designed!

Just by the account alone of stretching universe, see how science lends support to the Biblical account - and yet as science advances the more it only adds to refuting the theory of evolution!

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy