Questions About Evolution.

But look at the length of the cut-and-pastes! And the masterful use of the CapsLock key! (Okay, not so much, given the " instead of ' he's probably just holding dow the shift key, but it's still DAMNED IMPRESSIVE!)

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

You still haven't explained how the questions themselves prove the existence of God, Scott.

Try answering ALL THE QUESTIONS.
And I mean ALL THE QUESTIONS.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

But look at the length of the cut-and-pastes! And the masterful use of the CapsLock key! (Okay, not so much, given the " instead of ' he's probably just holding dow the shift key, but it's still DAMNED IMPRESSIVE!)

Please either ANSWER THE QUESTIONS or DON'T POST.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

He he I am really loving how everyone so far is only answering parts of each question to make them selves LOOK intelligent while totally IGNORING other parts.

ANSWER THEM ALL OR DON"T ANSWER AT ALL.

You may consider actually reading the answers. I did answer all your questions, explicitly in most cases, by reference to a book answering them in the rest of the cases. And while yelling in All Caps may strengthen your voice, it won't strengthen your arguments.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

Try answering ALL THE QUESTIONS.
And I mean ALL THE QUESTIONS.

Why? Even if we failed answer any of them, that would only prove that our theories were bad. It wouldn't prove that yours are good.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

You still haven't explained how the questions themselves prove the existence of God, Scott.

OMG. Try answering the questions.
If you don't want to PLEASE STOP POSTING HERE.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
You still haven't explained how the questions themselves prove the existence of God, Scott.

Try answering ALL THE QUESTIONS.
And I mean ALL THE QUESTIONS.

You are posting these questions under Spirituality & Religion. You have also flatly stated that because of these questions, God exists. If you are unwilling to show the relevance of these questions to spirituality or religion, you should post them in the Science & Mathematics forum.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I did answer all your questions,

No sir you did not. You just like all evolutionists gave the run around by totally ignoring most of the hard questions, and dealing with only those that would make you LOOK smart.

I am not going to buy no book on evolution simply because it mathematical impossible, and improbable.

Here is something I found on the net

Quote:

Don't some books say we've created the building blocks of life - supporting Evolution?

UNFORTUNATELY YES - BUT THEY ARE MISLEADING. They lead to the wrong conclusion. To create the building blocks for life, some 50 amino acids need to be produced - all in the same "orientation" (e.g. "left-handed"). Likewise many nucleotides need to produced in the proper orientation (e.g. "right-handed"). Some people have developed A FEW (2) of the amino acids. Yet they are always produced in equal quantities of right and left handed orientation. No random system is known to separate them. To create a reproducible cell, a chain of hundreds of the right amino acids must be put together, then bonded with a similar chain of perfect nucleotides. The statistical odds of this happening by chance is absurd. Microbiologists have calculated the odds of it happening ONCE would be like winning 1.4 MILLION lotteries in a row.

Apart from that impossibility, the few amino acids produced in experiments, were in a highly contrived environment - quite unlike early earth. AND the major product produced was always vast quantities of tar - which would destroy creation of cells. Then keep in mind that amino acids produced were a very small percentage. There is much more evidence refuting these experiments. That's why no significant advancements have been made since Stanley Miller's first experiment decades ago - although MANY have tried. Finally, suppose all components of a reproductive cell did somehow come together... Something still has to make it "alive" (like winding a watch). The evolutionary conclusion from this old experiment needs to be discarded

Winning 1.4 lotteries in a row. WOW.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
wandeljw wrote:
You still haven't explained how the questions themselves prove the existence of God, Scott.

Try answering ALL THE QUESTIONS.
And I mean ALL THE QUESTIONS.

You are posting these questions under Spirituality & Religion. You have also flatly stated that because of these questions, God exists. If you are unwilling to show the relevance of these questions to spirituality or religion, you should post them in the Science & Mathematics forum.

OMG If you read the questions CLOSELY you would see the relevance.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

I am not going to buy no book on evolution simply because it mathematical impossible, and improbable.

If no argument has a chance of changing your mind, what was the point of you creating this thread?

0 Replies

Re: Questions About Evolution.
MY ANSWERS:

EVOLUTION CHALLENGE

1. Where did the energy that formed the Cosmos come from?
God
A. Is this energy eternal or did it come from somewhere?
There was not energy God created.
B. If it came from something/somewhere where did that come from and so on?
The something is God.

2. Was the formation of the galaxies and solar systems random chance or was there a guiding influence?
There is no random chance it was all created.
A. If you believe the former -- present a mathematical hypothesis.
I don't
B. If you believe the latter -- explain what that force is and where it came from.
God

3. Is there order to the Cosmos?
Yes
A. If you believe this explain how order comes out of chaos and present a mathematical hypothesis for your belief.
God ordered everything as s/he saw fit
B. If you do not believe there is order to the Cosmos don't bother going any further -- you are not rational!
I believe in a God created Cosmos

4. Where did the designs of the Cosmos, the galaxies and the solar systems come from?
God
A. Are they by-products of random chance? (Present an hypothesis.)
No
B. Were they created by a designer
yes
-- if so where did the designer come from, who is He and can we know Him?
S/he has always existed without beginning and without end.

5. Where did the designs of the planets come from?
God.
A. Are they by-products of random chance? (Present an hypothesis.)
No
B. Were they created by a designer
yes
-- if so where did the designer come from, who is He and can we know Him?
Refer to 4b.

6. Where did the designs of every organic/inorganic thing in the Cosmos come from?
God
A. Is everything in the Cosmos a product of blind, random chance? (Present an hypothesis.)
No
B. What is the probability that everything in the Cosmos is a product of random chance? (Present a statistical hypothesis.)
Its improbable could not happen.
C. How long would it take for random chance to produce everything in the Cosmos? (Do the math!)
No chance sorry.
D. Was everything in the Cosmos designed
Yes
- if so where did the designer come from, who is He and can we know Him?

Refer to 4b

7. How many so-called evolutionary changes did it take to produce a man from the first single cell organism?
There was none. Evolution did not happen.
A. How long did those changes take? (List each change and the estimated time for every change.)
Does not apply due to former #7 answer.
B. What is the probability for each change and what is the probability of all the changes taking place in the proper sequence? (Present a mathematical hypothesis.)
0%
C. How much time is necessary for all of the random chance changes to produce everything in the Cosmos?
Does not apply due to first #7 answer.

8. Explain the mechanism that prompts an organism to mutate.
I can't
A. Explain how that organism can function properly until the mutation is completed. (Give several specific examples and make one of them the eye.)
I can't
B. Explain how higher life forms procreated before the present method of procreation was completed. (Give several examples.)
That type of evolution did not happen.
C. Explain the mechanism that causes a creature (including man) to allegedly eliminate a body part. (Give specific examples and make the tail one of them.)
Huh?

9. Explain how symbiotic life forms survived before their counterpart hooked up with them.
I can't
A. Give several examples in the plant and animal worlds.
n/a

10. Explain what kept the insect world from preventing the rise of the reptile and mammal kingdoms.
Good question if i believed in evolution but i don't so there was birds there to eat them up. YUM YUM. ick made myself sick typing that. LOL
A. We know that if insects are not kept in check by mammals and reptiles they would quickly overrun the world. Explain what kept them in check before mammals and reptiles came along. Please do not offer speculations. Present hard evidence as to how insects could have been kept in check.
Don't need to I don't believe in evolution.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scott777ab wrote:
I am not going to buy no book on evolution simply because it mathematical impossible, and improbable.

If no argument has a chance of changing your mind, what was the point of you creating this thread?

HOPING.
To change your mind.
But if not O well.

O by the way I ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS from my first post.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

HOPING.
To change your mind.
But if not O well.

O by the way I ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS from my first post.

You did. Yiz basically answered "God" to every question -- with no argument why the answer is correct. I can do this too. Whose fault is it that I'm spending too much time in this thread? God! Who created the mess on my desk? God! Who's portrayed as behaving like an infantile, murderous psychopath in the Old Testament? God!

See? I answered "God!" to every question, and only once was my answer correct. (The last time.) There is no reason to believe your batting average was any better. Personally I'd say yours is even worse, but whatever.

I'm getting tired of this thread. See ya.

0 Replies

Here is something I found on the net! It was written by Professor Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin:

Quote:

If scientists observe that "purely physical antecedents" at time t9 give rise to complex information at t10, this does not refute the ID claim any more than a mindless printing press does. ID proponents will simply maintain that an intelligent designer was present at an earlier stage. If scientists press their inquiry into the more remote past and discover that mindless physical conditions at t8 produced the conditions at t9, ID proponents will have the same reply: an intelligent designer was involved at a still earlier time. If scientists somehow manage to push their understanding of the complex information that exists at t10 all the way back to the start of the universe without ever having to invoke an intelligent designer, would that refute the ID position? Undoubtedly, ID proponents will then postulate a supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time. Defenders of ID always have a way out. This is not the mark of a falsifiable theory.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Here is something I found on the net! It was written by Professor Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin:

Quote:
If scientists observe that "purely physical antecedents" at time t9 give rise to complex information at t10, this does not refute the ID claim any more than a mindless printing press does. ID proponents will simply maintain that an intelligent designer was present at an earlier stage. If scientists press their inquiry into the more remote past and discover that mindless physical conditions at t8 produced the conditions at t9, ID proponents will have the same reply: an intelligent designer was involved at a still earlier time. If scientists somehow manage to push their understanding of the complex information that exists at t10 all the way back to the start of the universe without ever having to invoke an intelligent designer, would that refute the ID position? Undoubtedly, ID proponents will then postulate a supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time. Defenders of ID always have a way out. This is not the mark of a falsifiable theory.

This is not the mark of a falsifiable theory

Falsifiable does not mean false.

0 Replies

Quote:

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

I don't know.

Quote:

2. Where did matter come from?

I don't know.

Quote:

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

The laws were formulated by scientists who made careful observation of the behavior of matter and, by inference and calculation, energy.

Quote:

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Who says it's perfectly organized?

Quote:

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

I don't know. I don't even know what this means. Do physical forces require energy? Last I saw, energy was governed by forces, not vice versa.

Quote:

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

I don't know. I could quibble here, and point out that, in biology, the term "dead" is reserved for matter that once once part of a living organism. Matter that has never been incorporated into a living organism in its present form (quartz, let's say, just for fun) is referred to as "non-living." From a biochemical perspective, it can be an important distinction.

Quote:

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

I don't know.

Quote:

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

I don't know. I can tell you that there are some reproduction strategies in among unicellular prokaryotes and eukaryotes that blur the distinction between "sexual" and "asexual" reproduction - conjugation, for instance.

Quote:

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Um, because if this wasn't a function of the organism, it would never have been "born."

Quote:

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Well, how much do you know about genetics? About molecular biology? This question (like any of the others that actually makes sense) glosses decades of research by thousands of people to explicate how cells work from transcription to metabolism. To answer the question with any sort of concision requires that the answerer know how knowledgeable the asker is about these subjects. If you're not familiar with basic molecular biological principles, it's an impossible question to answer briefly. The upshot is, though, that not all mutations are lethal, and that those are not may confer an advantage to the carrier of the mutation in an ever-changing environment.

Quote:

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Yes, it is possible. If you actually look at genomic sequences (where these changes are kept), though, they certainly are more consistent with random change than with rational design. How, for instance, would you explain how noncoding sequences of DNA are more similar in closely related species than in distantly related (or, for sake of simplicity, unrelated) species?

Quote:

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

The question is based on a false premise, and so doesn't demand an answer. Natural selection (to oversimplify things) favors reproduction of individuals that are most fit to survive and accrue sufficient surplus energy and substrate for procreation. If the environment changes, so do the selective pressures on a population. In some cases, pressures may be narrowing. In others, they may be diversifying.

Quote:

13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

I don't know.

Quote:

b. Single-celled animals evolve?

I don't know.

Quote:

c. Fish change to amphibians?

I don't know.

Quote:

d. Amphibians change to reptiles?

Well, there was the development of the amnion, which enabled eggs to be laid on dry land instead of in the water, which made it possible for critters to exploit new environments. Beyond that, I don't know.

Quote:

e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

I don't know. (And thanks, author, for the enthusiastic parenthetical aside!)

Quote:

f. How did the intermediate forms live?

By eating and drinking and avoiding predation from without and within, I would assume.

Quote:

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?

I don't know. There is actually quite a bit of information available on this subject, if you are truly interested. I can tell you this, though - like everything else, they're still evolving, so I might say "now" and be correct.

Quote:

b. Sea horses evolve?

I don't know. (Why sea horses, exactly?)

Quote:

c. Bats evolve?

I don't know.

Quote:

d. Eyes evolve?

June 2, 384373462 BC. Roughly speaking.
Oh, wait, I don't know.

Quote:

e. Ears evolve?

I don't know.

Quote:

f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

At different times, I would suspect.

Quote:

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

I don't know.

Quote:

b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

I don't know. If the RNA-world folks are correct, though, from the very beginning. Self-replicating molecules, go the thinking - and I see no reason to think otherwise - developed before the first cell. (I mean, they would have had to, right? Life as we know it is actually built around spontaneously self-replicating molecules.)

Quote:

c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

I don't know. And there's that "perfect" thing again. The mixture of gases that are referred to here as "perfect" are anything but. Oxygen is toxic to most organisms on the planet. At the same time, present oxygen concentrations are insufficient for diffusion into the inefficient-to-nonefficient circulatory systems of insects to grow beyond their present limits. Oxygen concentration was much higher back when there were a bunch of big bugs and not yet any terrestrial vertebrates. Was the mixture of gases at that time "imperfect?"

Quote:

d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

I don't know.

Quote:

e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

I don't know. "Flagella," by the way, is a part of a microorganism, and it does not digest anything. Organism s that possess flagellae are often referred to as "flagellates." The eukaryotes in the termite gut are members of the genus Pseudotrichonympha, which I might assume to be flagellated, since the trichomonads are flagellates and the name implies morphological similarity between the groups. There's an abstract about coevolution of termite species and their endosymbionts at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03219.x, for what it's worth. Enjoy.

Quote:

f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

Well, you can look up at what point in deep history the angiosperms evolved. These generally require animal assistance in pollination. The gymnosperms - you know, pine trees and the like - preceded the angiosperms and reproduce just fine on their own, thank you very much. There were insects long before there were angiosperms, by the way.

Quote:

g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

I don't know.

Quote:

h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

I don't know about the first and the third ("endocrine system" will get you further than "hormone system," by the way. And yeasts use some chemicals very similar to some of those used by vertbrate endocrine systems in intercellular signalling, for what it's worth.) As regards the second - what the hell is the "repair system?"

Quote:

i. The immune system or the need for it?

Fungi have means of killing and/or repelling bacteria. Bacteria have means of killing and/or repelling fungi. It's not like there was this dog one day, and the next day he had an immune system.

Quote:

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Why don't you list some of these examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation? As far as "only" explanation, I don't know that it is. However, evolution is the best explanation that biology has come up with for these relationships, and best explanation is all that science ever can hope for.

Quote:

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

I don't know what is meant by "mimicry." Please explain, if you can.

Quote:

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Why wouldn't they? And why do you make "feelings" unique to humans. Rats have a limbic system (as does anything with a cerbral cortex), and it's operation is sufficiently similar to our own that rats are widely used as models for neural development and function.

Quote:

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

I don't know.

Quote:

20. How did thought evolve?

Please define "thought." Alternatively - I don't know.

Quote:

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

From nonflowering plants, I'd expect. Perhaps they evolved from marmots, but this seems a lot less likely.

Quote:

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

What kind of religionist are you? Why are you not one of the other 100,000 or so kinds?

Quote:

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

Not much. I wasn't alive. What could this possibly have to do with anything?

Quote:

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Well, we've only had a hundred years, and one of the predictions of your so-called "macroevolution" (itslef a bit of a straw man, but we'll let that go) is that it takes a long time for big changes to occur in big organisms (assuming, reasonably, that big organisms reproduce slowly).

Quote:

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

This isn't even a question, it's a rhetorical pout.

Quote:

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

I don't know.

And every time I say, "I don't know," I might add, "and neither do you." Saying, "God made it that way" is not knowing, it's a way of pretending to know. Unless you've met this God chap and had a conversation about how He (of course) made everything come about, you don't know. If you have had such a conversation, please ask if anything can be done about wintry mix. I'm really not a big fan.

You can really find better creationist rhetoric than this, by the way. It's been refined quite a lot over the last couple of decades. You can find a great deal of it on this site, for instance, if you care to engage in a little reading.

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

Falsifiable does not mean false.

Go back and reread wandel's post. You didn't fully grasp the wording.

Falsifiability (is that a word?) is demanded of any scientific hypothesis. If it can't be falsified -- that is, if there is no way to test it -- the hypothesis is useless. In fact, it's not even hypothesis, it's just conjecture. Such as the conjecture that a big bearded guy in a bathrobe summoned everything into existence six or seven millennia ago.

0 Replies

Quote:

Such as the conjecture that a big bearded guy in a bathrobe summoned everything into existence six or seven millennia ago.

Or the conjecture, that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, without the help of NASA.

Shocked

0 Replies

He had Nike Air sandals.

0 Replies

Professor Elliot Sober of the University of Wisconsin wrote:

ID proponents will then postulate a supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time

Uh.......the classic Christian understanding of God has always[/u] been of a 'supernatural intelligence that exists outside of space and time'.

Prof Sober soberly predicts that ID proponents will make this up at some future point when science somehow pushes them into a corner.

Perhaps he should do a little more research into what the views he opposes actually are, instead of trying to make himself out to be a prophet. Laughing

It reminds me of an A2Ker who insisted that one of the strongest arguments in favor of evolution was that Darwin's evolutionary theory 'predicted' that a mechanism existed for organisms to pass on their traits to their offspring.

Then behold and lo, the science of genetics 'uncovered this truth' a few decades later.

Actually, any animal breeder and any human parent had known for thousands of years that Junior often looks a lot like Daddy. Laughing

0 Replies

Questions About Evolution.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know