7
   

Question evolution campaign

 
 
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 08:04 pm
I was web surfing for a while looking up stuff and eventually came upon this site: http://creation.com/question-evolution. I was just wondering if anybody here would be able to give an answer, or at least a hypothesis to these questions?

1.How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
2.How did the DNA code originate?
3.How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
4.Why is natural selection 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 as ‘science’?
13.Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
14.Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
15.Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 7 • Views: 3,403 • Replies: 22

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 08:21 pm
Another creationist flings the gauntlet. This should be fun to watch, like a slow motion head on train collision. Note how the questions begin like a search for answers, but they turn to expressing conclusions by the end.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 08:32 pm
@TheFallout,
1. The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution
2. Same as 1.
3. It's called trillions of trillions of creatures over millions of years.
4. Why do you make a false argument?
5. see 1.
6. What does a design look like? Because we all share similar building blocks we all look similar.
7.same as 1
8. evolution
9. Because organic matter decays.
10. They were well suited for their environment or their environment hasn't changed.
11. Evolution
12. No such thing. Evolution is a theory that best fits the facts. If you have a better theory then present it.
13. One can go all the way back to Mendel for that answer
14. It is the same as operational science. All theories are based on what fits the facts. All science is subject to change when a better theory comes along.
15. Are you talking about ID? You clearly aren't talking about anything else.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:26 pm
@TheFallout,
This is old--somehow the Intulligent Designer movement is continuing to recycle craptopics. What do you expect from an organization thats only creative gene seems to be the aility to continued deception and cognative dissonance? It is senseless to respond rational answers aren't wanted or desired.

Face it bub--science isn't religion.

Rap
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:28 pm
@TheFallout,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60701203/Rebuttal-to-15-Questions-Evolution-Can
Setanta
 
  4  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 02:37 am
I don't have a problem with people who question evolution, or any science. I have a problem with people who don't listen to the answers.
TheFallout
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:44 am
@raprap,
Thank you for the well thought out answer, some of the answers were not as well explained as I would prefer but those answers would prove satisfactory to a creationist...well as satisfactory as possible as this is one of the belief's that they state on their site that all board members hold:

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

This honestly scares me a little bit that there are so many people in this country that this fanatical about something...especially since I live in the bible belt.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:59 am
@TheFallout,
What ought to frighten you more is that religious fanatics want to alter science and history teaching and textbooks to conform to their scripturally inspired world view.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 05:45 am
Sorry for calling you an IDer fallout.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:21 am
@TheFallout,
TheFallout wrote:
6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
That mentality is inconsistent with science and following it prevents them from accepting any arguments based on science. It also precludes any attempt to discuss anything with them.
TheFallout wrote:
Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
This particular argument also applies to them. Not only is scripture inconsistent with the evidence, but it is also open to interpretation by fallible people. Surprising that they think this argument supports them in any way.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:23 am
@TheFallout,
Creationism doesnt rely upon ANY evidence or whether its falsifiable or not. It does not require that predictions be made with its hypotheis. It blindly gos along with a belief in the scientific inerrancy of various holy books.
Creationism requires you to put your mind on numb and just follow your scripture.
A MIND IS A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE.

Intelliegent Design is supposed;ly a "scientific" ana;yses of Creation and is , supposedly, religion free. In t5hat respect, the ID associations of the world, the Discovery Institute being principle, have promised, ever since their modern day refounding by Phillip Johnson back in 1991, that they would be doing their own research and would be publishing all kinds of scientific stuff on thwecvidence of Intelligence in the biological world(not to mention the Universe). SInce the dates of their announcement (I belive it was in the late 90's) really NOTHING has been published that would be considered scientific evidence for an IDer.

Creation ex Nihilo and the Journal of Creation SCience, have continued on by attempting to negate the findings of reql science by using all sorts of fraudulent means and false interpretation (Like the recent discussions and "Proof" that the Grand Canyon stratigraphic sequence is evidence of the GREAT FLOOD), even though there is ample evidence to show that , within the Grand Canyon sequence , are a number of great terrestrial sand dune deposits. Stuff like that iw portrayed as deep science in favor of some Bibliocal worldview that surrounds Creationist and ID thinking.

SO far4 no research from the IDers and no postulate from the Creation magazines that hasnt been debunked by science.

Its still fun though.

I like those 15 questions because they make the kids thinmk. Even though evolution ISNT about the origins of RNA and DNA, its a world of evidence and experiment out there that is looking into these questions. Of course they cant be understood NOW, the concept of the function of the genome is but 50 years old and new discoveries are made daily.
Weve got evidence of nucleotides out in space in coronal clouds and in rare globular clusters. We know that certain layered minerals, like mica clays in solution, will adhere nucleotides to their selective surfaces just like electrons and protons attract.
There are myriads of nucleic acids , many of which havent been seen on earth for many a googulplex.
We have strong evidence of the rise of life from its earliest appearance to its appearnace in more advanced forms in the beginning of the CAmbrian. There is no evidence of any "Sudden appearances" of life in any strata. It looks like there was a long drawn out rise through the muck and through time.

0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:27 am
@TheFallout,
TheFallout wrote:
This honestly scares me a little bit that there are so many people in this country that this fanatical about something...especially since I live in the bible belt.
It is scary when you realize that a significant portion of the human race is essentially delusional and irrational. This causes and has caused significant problems for humanity. But a large portion of humanity still behaves with kindness and compassion even amidst their delusion. To me this indicates that the innate "good" qualities of people still guide their basic behavior.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:36 am
@rosborne979,
I see the "Question EVolution" crap on the notebooks of some of the charter school kids and the homeschoolers. They are being taught their parents worldview. Some stick with their parents beliefs, but many more dont. When kids get the hewmongous load of evidence that supports biological evolution and the underpinnings that geology provides, their lights turn on nicely.

Ive had several homeschooled kids in my intro geo courses back in the day. Most of these kids wanted to pursue something in science and got the disconnect between Creationism and SCience quite early in the semester.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:42 am
@farmerman,
Toddlers are very good little scientists and atheists. They start off questioning everything and don't have any concept of god. Having Faith and just accepting whatever you are told is a learned behavior. Luckily some teen agers and adults remember their primary instincts even after religious conditioning.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:45 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't have a problem with people who question evolution, or any science. I have a problem with people who don't listen to the answers.


I too think that questioning should be encouraged, but to argue against a theory by supporting a theory that has far less evidence seems,well, disingenuous as regards to weight of fact.
0 Replies
 
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 07:26 am
@TheFallout,
Mea Culpa. Most people where I'm from pose questions like this to reaffirm their preconcieved delusions. Rational answere are not appreciated and usually met with hostility.

Rap

DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 08:42 am
@raprap,
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/578676_509324679096990_1645256289_n.jpg
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 10:22 am
@DrewDad,
excellent point there DD. Im gonna make a bull board stickemup out of that one.
0 Replies
 
TheFallout
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:33 pm
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
Mea Culpa. Most people where I'm from pose questions like this to reaffirm their preconcieved delusions. Rational answere are not appreciated and usually met with hostility.

Rap
Where I'm from people ask questions that are far less intelligent than this thinking that I wouldn't be able to answer. An example would be, if we evolved from monkey's then why are their still monkeys...bible belt...
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 06:47 pm
@TheFallout,
TheFallout wrote:
Where I'm from people ask questions that are far less intelligent than this thinking that I wouldn't be able to answer. An example would be, if we evolved from monkey's then why are their still monkeys...bible belt...


The question doesn't make any sense whatever to anyone with even a smidgen of common sense. And the askers aren't aware of that fact. Sad.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Question evolution campaign
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 05:41:52