15 Questions for Evolutionists

[Michael Hardner]

Not all are as closed-minded as betsy.

You don't need to insult another poster to make your point - just make it.

[g_bambino]

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! Like what was said in the video rebutt, science is actually vindicating the Biblical accounts.

"Lend support" is not synonymous with "absolutely determined". You claimed we have the technology to determine the origin of life. What technology is that and what is the conclusion it helped us find?

Yeah, and usually they throw the theory out when they see that it's a real dud. A dead-end

Indeed they do.

[ed.: s/p]

Edited March 18, 2013 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

You don't need to insult another poster to make your point - just make it.

Indeed I don't. Hence, I don't and didn't. Pointing out the closed-mindedness of a person who flouts their closed-mindedness isn't an insult.

[The_Squid]

Microorganisms are proven.

Advancing technology leads to amazing discoveries, doesn't it Betsy? Before microorganisms and germ theory were proven to exist, religious folks thought illness was caused by possession, sinful behaviour, etc.

[betsy]

"Lend support" is not synonymous with "absolutely determined". You claimed we have the technology to determine the origin of life. What technology is that and what is the conclusion it helped us find?

What do you think Intelligent Design is all about??

What do you think it means by the fact that the more science advances, the more it supports the biblical account and/or Intelligent Design?

Bye-bye g bambino.

Edited March 18, 2013 by betsy

[g_bambino]

What do you think Intelligent Design is all about??

I know it is not the answer to the question: what technology is it that's helped us determine the origin of life?

Bye-bye g bambino

Thank you for admitting you were wrong; the origin of life has not been determined.

[The_Squid]

What do you think Intelligent Design is all about??

What do you think it means by the fact that the more science advances, the more it supports the biblical account and/or Intelligent Design?

Bye-bye g bambino.

I think ID is a lie made up by liars with no evidence based in any sort of real science.

Saying that science supports the bible is also a silly lie.

[DogOnPorch]

I know it is not the answer to the question: what technology is it that's helped us determine the origin of life?

Thank you for admitting you were wrong; the origin of life has not been determined.

Your line of thought was getting too hard to deal with. This gets you the kiss-off. We might as well go and discuss Richard Nixon in the other thread...lol.

[Sleipnir]

Let me remind you that when I say evolution, I'm talking about common descent/random, macro evolution.

Understand that evolution occurs intrinsically with micro and macro evolution. I have a feeling that you're pointing towards micro-evolution as an indication that macro-evolution is false - hence your persistant conclusion that evolution is wrong. You cannot reasonably consider one (micro-evolution) over the other (macro-evolution) when both are intrisically related.

Think of macro and micro evolution as hydrogen and oxygen molecules that makes up water. You can't reasonably talk about water if you're gonna talk exclusively about the oxygen molecules.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Bonam]

Think of macro and micro evolution as hydrogen and oxygen molecules that makes up water. You can't reasonably talk about water if you're gonna talk exclusively about the oxygen molecules.

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

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 3:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=q1fxW1eTjZc

[betsy]

Mighty AC:

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

It's not 'taught as evolution'. Natural selection is one of the processes that results in evolution. Over time organisms better adapted to their environment will live long enough to reproduce more often and spread their genetic material.

Actually, there is not one undisputed example of one structure arising gradually through natural selection. But if natural selection was the engine for evolution, we should have many examples of this happening. Rather, every example of natural selection that we have shows that it is a conservative force which specializes creatures to be better adapted for their environment. This involves a loss of information; for example, a population of bears in a cold climate losing information for short and medium-length fur.

How information is lost when creatures adapt to their environment: Bears

Bears across the world …

http://creation.com/bears-across-the-world

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 4:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=WK9t8pmVKdc

[betsy]

Mighty AC

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

Like life itself. Simple organisms didn't simply spring into complex plants and animals; there are an infinite string of steps. Some biochemical pathways have become more complex over time as well. As new variables including proteins and enzymes are introduced existing enzymes aren't rendered null and void. They may be able to work in concert with the new variable. Hence, like symbiotic relationships a chain is built one at a time with one enzymatic process uses the results of another.

Documentation? Evidence?

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 5:


http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=FvSH3wbAiRE

[betsy]

Mighty AC

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

First of all under close inspection most life does not look designed. Organisms are littered with inefficient processes and vestigial elements that no competent designer would include. Second, there is absolutely no evidence for a designer so it is better to look for real natural answers. At one time God was responsible for lighting, fortunately, we didn't accept that answer and continued to investigate.

It is said that gremlins break machinery. When machines break should be shrug our shoulders and say a gremlin did it or should we look at ways to improve the design?

Well we can't really consider this a serious response. It's just a simple statement of denial.

I'm scratching my head to your last statement though. I don't know where gremlins fit into these.....but, if a machine breaks down, isn't asking questions the most important step in improving the DESIGN?

You call a repairman: hey Mr Repairman, my machine broke down.

Did you ever encounter a repair guy who never asked you anything about it....but just proceed to tweak and "fix" it without knowing what's wrong with it?

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 6:



http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=OVm8lSFjaa8

[betsy]

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.

[betsy]

Mighty AC:

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

Unicellular organisms form symbiotic relationships with other organisms and even form massive colonies that work together. We can observe this. Multicellularity is an inevitable natural consequence of cell colonies that can grow continuously.

There is a huge difference between a colony of single-celled organisms and a true multi-celled organism, and no known mechanism would enable an organism to make that leap. For example, there is a big jump between selection for single cell reproductive success and that for integrity of a multicellular organism.

In complex creatures, great reproductive success of a single cell type is usually called cancer.

Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?

All evolution assumes either the augmentation of some prior system to fit a new need, or lateral gene transfer adding information for the same end. Even systems that seem to require completely new structures (feathers for example) are assumed to be modified from pre-existing structures. However, there are two significant events in evolutionary history where far more would have been required—the origin of life, and the origin of co-ordinated multicellularity.

http://creation.com/multicellularity Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 7:


http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=sxoa-L7KFGM

[betsy]

Mighty AC

8. How did sex originate?

We don't know for sure yet, but we have some good ideas. Again, you don't know either.

Well, your camp has a well of ideas....unfortunately most of them are dead ideas.

I applaud you, for being bravely honest to concede that your camp don't know.

Let me take this opportunity to tell you that though we come from opposing camps - and that at times we get too heated up - I have respect for you as a debator.

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

Creation Ministries give its video rebutts to Question 8:

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

Edited March 19, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Debating with spam is hard.

[GostHacked]

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.

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

[GostHacked]

Debating with spam is hard.

I agree this is spam now. We have the one link to all the videos, and now we are getting individual posts regarding each video on the site she already gave us.... but check them out, they are a hoot.