15 Questions for Evolutionists

[Canuckistani]

1 thing ID people hate: saying how it works.

[BubberMiley]

.

Things Evolutionists Hate

• The Bible. Why won't it go away?
• God.

You're unrepentedly bearing false witness again. Lots of Christians believe in evolution, and it's a sin to profess that they hate God. Jesus doesn't want you speaking for Him anymore.

[Canuckistani]

Yep. Apparently all 1.2 billion Catholics hate the bible and God, since they, or their church at least, have no problem with evolution.

[BubberMiley]

I can't think of anything more unchristian than telling other Christians they hate God. Sometimes people aren't really as Christian as they think they are.

[g_bambino]

I can't think of anything more unchristian than telling other Christians they hate God. Sometimes people aren't really as Christian as they think they are.

Well, one of the many questions betsy has refused to answer is whether or not she feels those who follow a different sect of Christianity than she does are really Christians. I guess questions like that are on the list of things betsy hates, along with being asked to explain how Intelligent Design works, why science is good enough to "prove" parts of the Bible to be true but not good enough to support the theory of evolution, and why the explanation for the origin of matter isn't needed to explain gravity but an explanation for the origin of life is required to explain evolution.

[ed.: c/e, +]

Edited March 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[betsy]

From years of observation and experiment on his board, the following evidences are added to the things evolutionists hate:

94. Creationists who wear their faith on their sleeves.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

95. Creationists who post about their faith in forums.

96. Creationists who can confidently, and firmly, stand up to them in forums.

97. Creationists who can back up their opinion from reliable sources.

98. Links and videos. Because they can't refute, and exposes all the bs.

99. Logic.

100. Dealing with the issue. Because they can't. They'll try at first. You'll know when they start to realize they're losing the argument by the changes in their tone. There's more agitated chitterings. Their questions become more redundant the deeper that realization sinks in. Deflections become more abundant.

And you know they've given up trying when the personal attacks start coming. And the rest of the crew comes swarming.

All hands on deck! All hands on deck!

You'd think they're facing the flood, as they all scramble for the boat....the leaky Evolution boat! :lol:

101. Betsy.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

102. Christian Apologetics.

Edited March 24, 2013 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

1. People who identify themselves as Christians but who have contempt for the teachings of Christ.

[GostHacked]

1. People who identify themselves as Christians but who have contempt for the teachings of Christ.

You are right, not sure what Betsy is, but it does not seem like Christianity.

[kimmy]

There has been some amount of caterwauling in the "How Intelligent Design Works" thread due to the fact that I have been making fun of betsy's "top 100 list" in that thread without actually confronting it. Ok, due to popular demand, here it is.

I could have a go at any or all of those items, but I will just take this one:

• 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.

That's it. That's all I need. That is irrefutable evidence that the writer doesn't understand the theory he says he's trying to ridicule.

If you say you're going to disprove calculus and then proceed to demonstrate that you can't even do basic algebra, you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

If you say you're going to disprove evolution, and offer up "why have cockroaches and horseshoe crabs stayed the same for eons?" you've forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

It is such a dead giveaway that he has no idea what he is talking about that he might as well include "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" on his list too.

There you go, Betsy. Happy now?

-k

[Bonam]

"if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

-k

Oh my god! How did I never think of that? Evolution must be false, I must now readjust my whole world view and embrace the light of creationism!

[CliffStir]

1. How did life originate?

According to some guy who didn’t even know that washing his
hands before eating could cause sickness, or that thunder was a side affect of
lightning and not angry gods, or that the Sun would come up the next day
whether one prostrated oneself or not, life was created by some omnipotent being. The main
proof of this being’s existence comes from the argument that because we can’t
create life but life does exist, then it must have been created by a GOD. Look;
it’s obvious that such a complex thing as LIFE could not have come about by
itself surely!! So it must have been created by something so much MORE complex.
(we’ll just ignore the question of where did this god come from because it
doesn’t fit with these beliefs and since these beliefs are the ONLY ones
tolerated then it follows that these are IRRELEVANT questions anyways.

Hallelujah!!!

2. How did the DNA code originate?

Curious men and woman using the brains that god gave them have been pursuing the answer to that question for
some time now. And while the answer hasn’t presented itself with any certainty yet, there are some interesting theories and ideas that are being pursued to explain how this mechanism came into existence.

1 extremely early theory that was developed before anything was known about DNA was since man didn’t create it and there for we couldn’t EXPLAIN it (yet) then it must be magic, and we know magic falls squarely into the domain of god or witches and since someone once wrote that we shouldn’t TOLERATE witches,then for our arguments we can discount them.

So the answer must be that DNA came from god. (couldn’t we have just looked up the answer to that one in the Bible??)

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?

Ah yes. The ever present confabulation of how did a Microbe (or monkey) turn into a Microbiologist (or Man)

There’s always the possibility that billions of DNA molecules, in Billions of creatures, over billions of years adds up to extremely huge numbers of DNA molecules.

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

Observation, testing, and willingness to look at facts and evidence without bias.

In fact, this process has been used by farmers and animal breeders for many many generations often to the point of ridiculousness, and very often to the detriment of the species in question.

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

I don’t think we have enough time or space on this thread to even begin to look at all the ideas and theories and possibilities that are
being looked into in an effort to answer this question. But then It’s probably a little more complex than: “I don’t understand it so it must be GOD”

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

No need to invent a magical being just because you can’t understand something and since science tries not to make any assumptions and
just follow the evidence and evidence seems to show that species adapt to their environments over time, then it would follow that even though it may LOOK like a creature was designed in it’s current state it actually has adapted over time and it’s current design is only the latest in an ongoing re-branding.

7. How did multi-cellular life originate?

See 1 2 and 3



8. How did sex originate?

The condoms were piling up and someone had to start using them!

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

Erosion? Weather? The fact that this type of evidence isn’t conducive to being left lying around long enough for someone today to even recognize it for what it is?

One theory is that a special secretive department in the Vatican is responsible for erasing any evidence that doesn’t fit their agenda.

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

You don’t REALLY understand the theories you are trying to denigrate do you???

It's really quite simple. the living fossils fit their environment quite comfortably and haven't been forced to adapt to changing conditions. The members of the original species that DID change in some way are now DIFFERENT from the original. (which also goes to explain how DIFFERENT species came about. as well as WHY there are STILL monkeys, even though they have also evolved into MAN)

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

The debate rages on about this, but it is generally thought that intelligence, added surviveability to a species and therefore tended to be
passed on to subsequent generations. The Stupid genes usually led to being eaten earlier rather than later in life thereby REDUCING the chance that these traits would be passed on.

Altruism and morality are not included as different cultures have different morals. (i.e child sex is morally accepted in some cultures but not in ours.

same goes with the use of violence or the keeping of slaves.

And I could never understand the morals of the truly religious to condemn Homosexuals yet protect members of their own clergy who have been accused or caught having gay underage sex with choirboys.. It just goes to show how complex the whole question of morality is and how it can be twisted to one's own ends. This is evident in the way it would be accepted that a moral and compassionate god would create cancer, MS, down syndrome, malaria, bubonic plague, leprosy, etc. etc.

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

Not sure I understand this question but it kind of sounds like the typical religious concept of NOT TOLERATING any ideas that don’t mimic
one’s own personal beliefs.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due
to evolution?

The carrot? The Shi-Tzu?, The turkey you had for easter?

Archaeopteryx ? Trilobytes? the Petrified forest in Arizona?

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?

Oh, you are talking about the HISTORY of evolution? Or evolution itself?

Evolution as a theory attempts to explain the mechanisms by which a species adapts to changes in it’s environment. It’s not a theory of
history.

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

I don’t know why the bible is taught in classes. You would think in this enlightened age of computers and modern medicine that a story
passed down by word of mouth for generations before it was ever committed to paper then revised time and again and ultimately re-written would be taken with a hefty dose of salt.

[segnosaur]

You missed the #1 thing that "evolutionists" hate about creationists:

We dislike individuals who are spouting nonsense that can only serve to weaken Canada in the long run, even potentially damaging individual's health and economic well being.

I recall a meeting I went to where I talked with Eugenie Scott, respected researcher and member of the NCSE. She stated that when she gives speeches to businessmen, she often has them come up to her to thank her and encourage her, pointing out the importance of work that she's doing to promote an understanding of evolution. And these are business people. They recognize the importance of an educated work force.

Canada is in competition with other countries in the world. Creationists are generally ignored by those engaging in real scientific research. But, science doesn't work in a vacuum.... it depends on those from outside the scientific community for funding, and to produce next generation's scientific minds. The more idiotic creationist nonsense that exists, the harder it will be for science in the future. As a result, it will make it harder for Canada to compete with countries who's educational systems have less nonsense to deal with.

96. Creationists who can confidently, and firmly, stand up to them in forums.

Unfortunately you don't seem to understand the difference between being "confident" and sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la" whenever someone with a bit of scientific knowledge points out the idiocy in your arguments.

98. Links and videos. Because they can't refute, and exposes all the bs.

No, because links and videos are akin to spamming. It shows no ability to think, reason or understand on the part of the individual posting the links or videos.

If you are unable to understand a point well enough to state it in your own words, why should we bother with any arguments that are made?

99. Logic.

Actually, evolutionists love logic. That's why we reject creationism and its brain-damaged sibling, Intelligent design.

100. Dealing with the issue. Because they can't.

Actually science can.

Here's the problem... idiot creationists tend to run around spamming the internet with nonsense. Everything they argue has been debunked time and time again, but it doesn't stop them from posting the same nonsense that's already been posted and refuted.

In fact, that seems to be the whole point of this thread... some post of 15 "gotcha" questions that supposedly debunks evolution. Yet a 30 second google search can easily find all the answers have already been given. But that won't stop a creationist from posting the list on yet ANOTHER forum, and then lying about how "science won't answer these", even though it has.

[GostHacked]

I can't get enough of the Neil Degrasse Tyson.... invoking him here again.

When someone invokes God as the answer to something that we currently do not know, we come to a dead stop in exploration. The intellectual future of a country is at stake when the population no longer has the capacity to be innovative.

[segnosaur]

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

You don’t REALLY understand the theories you are trying to denigrate do you???

It's really quite simple. the living fossils fit their environment quite comfortably and haven't been forced to adapt to changing conditions. The members of the original species that DID change in some way are now DIFFERENT from the original.

And don't forget... the term "living fossil" doesn't necessarily mean that a species has been unchanged for millions of years.

Often times, many of the changes in a creatures biology just don't show up in the fossil records. (For example, organ structures, body chemistry, immune system, etc.)

And sometimes an organism will be classified as a "living fossil" even if it does differ from older versions. (Evolution often looks at groups of animals rather than species. For example, the Coelacanth as fossil group originated millions of years ago, but individual species may have looked different than the modern coelacanth.)

[DogOnPorch]

Sand dollars are a good example of a so-called living fossil. Pretty much unchanged since the Paleocene. Doesn't need to, either.

Paleocene sand dollar fossil. (above) Modern sand dollar. (below)

Edited April 8, 2013 by DogOnPorch

[The_Squid]

Sand dollars are a good example of a so-called living fossil. Pretty much unchanged since the Paleocene. Doesn't need to, either.

As Segnosaur alluded to, the term "living fossils" is a descriptive term for a modern animal that looks very similar to its prehistoric relative and has few living relatives. It isn't a biological (taxonomic) term for the exact same species living then as now. In fact, the term is quickly becoming irrelevant among scientists who study these things.

This outward constancy has earned them the description of “living

fossils”—a term referring to species with no close living relatives,

which seem to have gone unchanged for long spans of time.

But according to a genetic analysis of notostracans published today in PeerJ,

these animals have by no means stopped evolving. Indeed, researchers

are coming to realize that the term “living fossil” is a misnomer. One

by one, the classic examples—horseshoe crabs, coelacanths, cycads, and

more—have turned out to be very different from the fossils that they

apparently resemble, either at a genetic level or through subtle

physical changes. Their recognizable nature is a red herring—these

creatures simply did not exist in their current form millions of years

ago.

------------------------------

Although Darwin himself coined the term in On the Origin of Species,

Gomez said, “I think he would have been pleased if he had found out

that living fossils evolve as every organism does and we no longer had

to use the term.”

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34927/title/The-Falsity-of-Living-Fossils/

[DogOnPorch]

No worries...I totally agree. They are somewhat different...but not much. As mentioned...no need to change. Bottom feeding invertebrates figured out their biz ages ago.

[kimmy]

Evolution as a theory attempts to explain the mechanisms by which a species adapts to changes in it’s environment. It’s not a theory of history.

A good post, and a worthy effort, Cliff! Sadly, it will be completely wasted on Betsy.

-k

[kimmy]

No worries...I totally agree. They are somewhat different...but not much. As mentioned...no need to change. Bottom feeding invertebrates figured out their biz ages ago.

The whole argument being put forth ("cockroaches (or coelacanths or sturgeons or horseshoe crabs) haven't changed in millions of years! So why aren't they evolving? huh? huh?") is a dead giveaway that the person offering the argument doesn't understand what they're talking about.

I think Betsy reacted badly to having this pointed out to her and posted something that earned her a month-long vacation.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Creationists don't seem to understand what drives natural selection. Things don't change 'just because'. If it works, it will breed.

[segnosaur]

No worries...I totally agree. They are somewhat different...but not much. As mentioned...no need to change. Bottom feeding invertebrates figured out their biz ages ago.

Oh yeah? Then why did those "bottom feeding invertebrates" evolve into creationists?

Oh, right.

[Mighty AC]

The whole argument being put forth ("cockroaches (or coelacanths or sturgeons or horseshoe crabs) haven't changed in millions of years! So why aren't they evolving? huh? huh?") is a dead giveaway that the person offering the argument doesn't understand what they're talking about.

I think Betsy reacted badly to having this pointed out to her and posted something that earned her a month-long vacation.

-k

Betsy, if you are reading items during your timeout, here is a freely available audio book version of The Selfish Gene. Listen to it on YouTube or use a site like http://keepvid.com/ to download the mp3s for use on your iPod or phone. The book doesn't attack religion in any way it simply explains evolution and genetics in plain language. IMO, this is a great way to take in a lot of knowledge in a short period of time. It won't change your mind, in fact, it won't even try; but, it will allow you to make more reasonable points and avoid some of the unintelligible arguments listed in the OP.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh yeah? Then why did those "bottom feeding invertebrates" evolve into creationists?

Oh, right.

If there were Creationists swimming around in the prehistoric sand dollar's environment, they probably would have been chum for another 'living fossil'.