Questions Science Can't Answer | Creation Today

Our Websites

Questions Science Can’t Answer

For fun the other day I twittered this question: How many questions will Science never answer?

I’ll start:
Why am I here?
Your turn.

I loved the responses from Christians and the attempts to answer them by non-Christians.  Here were some great questions.  Feel free to add to the list.

  1. Why am I here?
  2. What happens when you die?
  3. What is the purpose of my life?
  4. What determines “Good” and “Evil”?
  5. Where did love come from?
  6. Why does mankind abuse and kill its own?
  7. Where did the first teeny-weeny molecule of matter come from?
  8. Does a physical world exist beyond my mind?
  9. Why are there male and female?
  10. Why does it take both sexes to create a new life?
  11. What is life?
  12. Where did laws come from?
  13. How did Time, Space and Matter come into existence?
  14. How did something come from nothing?

As I read some of the attempts to answer these questions, it became apparent that many unbelievers will say anything to avoid professing God!  Now, it is your turn to add to this list or attempt to answer some of these questions according to science.

Further Study

Absolute Truth by Eric Hovind

,

67 Responses to Questions Science Can’t Answer

  1. Kenneth Tyner June 6, 2011 at 6:03 am #

    Where is the evidence for a common ancestor?
    Where is the evidence that any living organism evolved from that common ancestor?
    Where is the evidence this is even a physical possibility?
    Where is the evidence it takes millions of years to happen?

  2. Stephen Porter June 6, 2011 at 6:46 am #

    The Dead Sea became salty by evaporation. Did the oceans start out salty or did they start out fresh and become salty by evaporation?

  3. Wendy Allan June 6, 2011 at 7:29 am #

    1.I am here to show God’s Love to others and to share about Him (Jesus Christ)
    2. My soul and spirit will be met with Jesus! My body will decay.
    3. Same as #1
    4.God’s Word.
    5..God is Love
    6.Mankind sinful, back to the Garden. God gave us free will to chose.
    7.God created ALL things.
    8.yes.
    9.So we could chose whether to have children or not. A Gift.

  4. andrew Ryan June 6, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    Why presume that science will never answer these questions? Science already HAS decent answers to at least 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14. I’ve seen whole books explaining some of those questions if you’re genuinely interested. As for question 7, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then it makes no sense to ask where it comes from – it could well be eternal.

    Finally, even if science could not answer any of these questions (which it can) then ‘God did it’ is not the default answer. In fact, “God did it’ is not actually an answer to ANY of these questions, as it just poses further questions. eg 1) Why did God make you, 4) HOW does God determine good and evil, 14) What did God make matter out of?

  5. H. Bosma June 6, 2011 at 8:25 am #

    First of all, none of these questions have anything to do with evolution. Q9&10 can be answered with using evolution, but not in the esotherical sense.

    I will only briefly answer your questions, but most are philosophical and are suggestive.

    Q1; counterquestion, is there a need for a reason?
    Q2; nothing, your body decomposes and becomes nutrition etc
    Q3; is there? Is there need to be any. This question is only relevant because we are intelligent being able to pose these questions, they say nothing about the need or source of our existence.
    Q4; It’s a societal issue. In the sence of do not to to another, what you do not what to be done to yourself.
    Q5; love is a chemical reaction, our mind and culture make it as we now percieve it.
    Q6; This prooves a God?? Look in nature, this happens among other species……
    Q7; how did your God come into existence? Same question. Our minds are far to limited to look beyond our own space and time.
    Q8; philosophical…….. We built on common experience and exchange of knowledge.
    Q9; apparently it was a favourable mutation to have slight difference in parents (genetic diversity), by evolution, our male/female concept was developed.
    Q10; it does not, plenty of plants and animals do not need the other sexe.
    Q11; philosophical question. Not really relevant is this discussion and differs from individual perception.
    Q12; developed because in increasingly larger society order and peace needed to be gaurenteed (if you mean these kind of laws..)
    Q13; see Q7
    Q14; see Q7

    Because you are a firm believer in God, you will only be able to answer them with God (eventough a ew of them cannot be answered sensibly that way).
    If you take the scientific route, you keep all options open.
    Again, this has NOTHING to do with evolutiopn. It’s just obscuring the debate by adding non-related subjects and saying they are related.

  6. Jay Liverstitch June 6, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    I never cease to be amaze at some of the things you post Eric.

    With only a few exceptions, the questions have already been answered by science.

    1. Why am I here? Assuming you mean “What is the purpose of Eric Hovind’s existence”. In my opinion, only Eric Hovind can answer this question. If a God similar to the one you posit does exist however, then I suppose He would be the only One capable of answering such a question. If He doesn’t exist, then the only answer of any meaning would have to be given by you; there would be no purpose imposed upon you.

    Knowing you, I’m sure you’d find the latter to be most disagreeable. Having no purpose imposed upon you seems to make you uncomfortable (for reasons unknown and foreign to me). You seem to think that having been designed to some end by someone outside yourself gives you more worth than you would otherwise have. I completely disagree.

    Having a purpose imposed on you shouldn’t, in itself, be any measure of value. Screwdrivers were designed for a purpose, as were beef cattle. Is a beef cattle’s existence more or less meaningful than that of a the cow’s wild ancestor, the Auroch? Knowing that I am not simply one member of some nonexistent God’s “herd” (or flock if you wish), is more satisfying to me than was the opposite belief when I felt obligated to live my life according to His mandates. To further the analogy, it’s true that I will no longer be able to further my purpose past my death. Like the auroch, I’ll most likely just rot in the ground. Does that mean that a beef cow’s life was more important because it’s purpose does extend past it’s own death, onto the plate of a steak connoisseur? To paraphrase a wise man “It doesn’t matter now, that none of this will matter in a million years”. I can still do good, make a positive difference to those I can influence, and ultimately live a fulfilling life, without the need of some life after this one.

    2. What happens when you die? – Electrical signals in your brain will cease transmission. Since science has demonstrated that those electrical signals are what constitute your consciousness, it’s reasonable to conclude that your consciousness will cease as well.

    3. What is the purpose of my life? I don’t see how this is any different from question 1.

    4. What determines “Good” and “Evil”? This is very much dependent on the species that’s asking the question and it’s culture (e.g. what is “evil” from the perspective of western lowland gorilla, is not necessarily the same as what is evil from the perspective of the particular branch of African apes we call “human”). Science has answered this question: the relevant branches being sociology and psychology.

    To get directly to what I know you are now thinking: Yes, that means that morality is subjective. No, that does not mean that I think it’s ever ok to rape children.

    Human morality would not exist without humans, it is therefore, by definition, subject TO HUMANS. Even if you are right, and your God does exist, then morality is still subjective. The difference is that it is now subject TO GOD.

    Note, breifly, that the question you asked is “What determines…”, not “what is the best system of determining…” Science is perfectly capable of answering the first, and some argue (see Sam Harris) that it’s also capable of answering the second.

    5. Where did love come from? Natural Selection. In social animals, nature selected for traits that lead individuals to care for, protect, and strive to provide benefit to other individuals in their group, as these traits proved to be more beneficial to the species as a whole than pure individual selfishness at everyone else’s expense.

    6. Why does mankind abuse and kill its own? Natural Selection. See above phrase “In their group”. Those outside one’s group are less likely to contain similar genetic traits. Since the “goal” of natural selection is to favor traits that encourage the spread of one population’s genetics, those outside one’s group are less likely to be cared for, and in cases of limited resources, are often viewed with hostility, as more resources for “them” necessarily means less resources for “us”.

    Also, see psychopaths, who have no capacity for empathy.

    I’ll note quickly that I am not, nor do I know any non-psychopath who would, suggest that we as a people should base any social or political policy on this principle. Natural selection is simply how one aspect of nature works. It would be horrific if anyone tried to use it as some form of model after which to fashion policy. (que Godwin’s Law in 3…2…1…)

    7. Where did the first teeny-weeny molecule of matter come from? Matter first formed in the aftermath of the Big Bang, during the Photon Epoc. Roughly 10 seconds after the initial expansion, and lasting for roughly 17 minutes, atomic nuclei of hydrogen and helium were able to form.

    8. Does a physical world exist beyond my mind? “Science” would answer “Yes, there is a physical world outside Eric Hovind’s mind.”

    Joking aside, you no doubt meant for this question to be “How can one know that there exists a physical world outside his/her mind”, in which case, the answer might be “one can’t”. Ask a philosopher; this question has little place in the realm of science, for if no physical world exists, then there is nothing for science to investigate.

    9. Why are there male and female? Natural selection. Over the course of the past 4 billion years, in some species, nature tended to select for specialized sex cells, and eventually, specialized sexes.

    There are likely many reasons for this: I’ll name a few. Specialized sex cells lead to more efficient use of energy, since one type of cell (sperm) can be streamlined to contain only genetic material, while the other sex cell (egg) can fill the rest of reproductive needs. As a consequence, sperm cells are much easier to produce, and thus spread, fertilizing many more eggs than would be possible if the male had to produce fully self contained sex cells.

    Sexual reproduction also provides more genetic diversity than asexual, while also minimize detrimental traits.

    10. Why does it take both sexes to create a new life? It doesn’t. Most species on this planet contain only one sex, many can reproduce without a partner, and a small subset of life on this planet requires both sexes to reproduce. As an aside, you claim science can’t answer this (it can, but w/e), I’m curious then, does religion and/or the Christian Bible answer this? Verse please?

    11. What is life? “A physical object capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development”

    12. Where did laws come from? The legislative branch of government?…

    13. How did Time, Space and Matter come into existence? The Big Bang. No, seriously, this is where it came from.

    14. How did something come from nothing? Quantum Fluctuations. I’ll note that this is not, as you are probably implying, an absolute ontological void, for there has to be some law at work on nature to produce “something from nothing”.

    Is there any evidence that something has ever come from absolute nothingness? Is there any evidence that there ever has been an ontological ‘nothing’? We’ve ever observed anything that should lead us to believe that the default state of nature is pure nothingness. And as I’ve pointed out here before, you don’t believe that an ontological nullity has ever existed either, as you believe that God has always existed, without need for a cause.

    I would like to hear the Christian answer for “How can God come from nothing?” as I’m sure you believe that nothing created God? If you can’t answer the question “Where did God come from”, would you then consider abandoning Christianity? If you answer no, then tell me why would you expect me to consider abandoning atheism if I can’t answer definitively where the the universe came from?

    So ultimately, atheists and theists have the same answer to this question. We both agree that “something” must have always existed, whether that something be a timeless singularity, a multiverse with a given set of natural laws, or an all-powerful God.

    So what’s the conclusion then? Am I arguing that because you can’t give a proper account for how God came to exist that you should therefore abandon Christianity? No, that’s what you’re doing with me and the universe, yet you choose not to hold your own feet to your own flame. I for one, don’t think that the inability to answer this rhetorical question should lead you to abandon Christianity… it’s the complete lack of observable evidence that should do that.

    Jay

  7. Kyle Rutherford June 6, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    “Where is the evidence for a common ancestor?”
    We share over 60 ERV’s with apes. These are viruses that randomly insert into the genome which would be impossible if it weren’t for common ancestry. Plus chromosome #2 is a fused chromosome so we have the same number of chromosomes.
    “Where is the evidence that any living organism evolved from that common ancestor?”
    Huh? Evolution works via population not on an individualistic scale.

    “Where is the evidence this is even a physical possibility?”
    Mutational changes.

    Where is the evidence it takes millions of years to happen?
    The nature of mutational changes.

    And to eric – It doesn’t require two sexes to create a life. Look at the polyp and medusa stages of certain oceanic life. One stage is done by asexual reproduction, the other is done by having sperm and egg cells.

  8. Stephen Holshouser June 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    1.) How and why would ANY sensory organ ever arise by natural processes if there was no way to perceive or know that light waves, temperature, sound waves, smells, etc. even existed?

    (Keep in mind the complexity needed for even ONE sensation… take away any link in the chain of the sensory process and you have no way to perceive the stimulus. All the complexity has to be there right from the beginning!)

    What an AMAZING God we have to design such a beautiful world and bless us with the abilities to perceive many different aspects of it for our good and His glory!
    Thank you Lord!!

    Psalm 139:14

  9. John Bebbington June 6, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    How come Adam and Eve managed to meet when they lived fifty thousand years apart?

  10. Jack Napper June 6, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Where is the evidence for a common ancestor?
    Where is the evidence that any living organism evolved from that common ancestor?
    Where is the evidence this is even a physical possibility?
    Where is the evidence it takes millions of years to happen?

    Kenneth —
    Science already provides an answers for these questions. Perhaps you would do well than making an argument from ignorance more foolish than Eric’s.

    12. Where did laws come from? The legislative branch of government?

    Jay —
    I’m guessing he is referring to scientific laws. It’s apparent that Eric has never bothered to look up the definition of SCIENTIFIC LAW as they are, put so simply a retard chimp could understand, explanation of observed constants in phenomenon. The laws are not absolute as they are not true in all cases and are actually very much subject to change.

    1.) How and why would ANY sensory organ ever arise by natural processes if there was no way to perceive or know that light waves, temperature, sound waves, smells, etc. even existed?

    Stephen —
    This would be a decent question if your understanding wasn’t completely backwards. If a baby is born blind why does it still need eyes? We can get a lot sillier if you like.

    (Keep in mind the complexity needed for even ONE sensation take away any link in the chain of the sensory process and you have no way to perceive the stimulus. All the complexity has to be there right from the beginning!)

    Of course this would make sense if it popped into existence fully formed. Seriously reading your posts is like watching a fist fight where one guy stands there punching himself until he’s bruised and bloody and then claims to be the winner.

  11. Rory Russell June 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm #

    The Questions are are good and Logical. I have some more to add maybe a scientiest can answer.

    Where does the information ATCG come from in DNA?
    Why is life still no involving?
    Why do we loose variations of animales and plants, (species, even though I don’t like that word), but we never seen one come into excistance?
    If only life can create life i.e. man and woman=baby, aslo called biogenesis, why do you think non-life can creat life.

    Jay Liverstitch: You are blind. 1 electric signals in the brain do exist but do not allow the conclusion that they controle your conciance, infact all they are is what they say they are signals, move hand, type with fingers, got a headach from malnutrition, turn head, look right or left and so on.

    2. ‘I would like to hear the Christian answer for “How can God come from nothing? as I’m sure you believe that nothing created God?’ – you (Jay Liverstitch) God is Omnipotant and Omniscent, you are sure we be nothing created God? lol is that a pun?

    3.You can’t explain the universe, you can’t even explain you own thoughts and logic to make you believe in “evolution” and The Big Bang is du-du- dumb thing to even bring up, concidering most cosmologist and astrologist have abandund this for other dumb hyposathises.

    4. to answer your 10. You are talking about cells or bacteria, not animales or humans, even insects have a queen, and they have to have a male at first. But while on cells how about answer the Bacterial Flagellum that has been proven to have Irreducible complexity, and thus could not have come from “evolution” because it could not gradually come into excistance accept to come all at once. Read Darwins Black Box Micheal J. Behe they probably sell it on this website.

    Ultimatly Atheist do not have near the same answers as Creationist. Evolution is not even a good theory, in contradicts more Laws (1 and 2 Thermole Dynamics just the main) than it approves of.

    I am willing to send anyone information and referance or explain more, just email me, maybe you don’t have money to buy the books. but here are some The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (University of California at Berkeley Biology and Theology at Yale) or Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris Ph.D. and President for ICR that book you can buy on this website drdino.com for like 11 $ if not less. otherwise rebornrussell@gmail.com I will answere questions not from me but from the experts with refrences.

    In the Love of Jesus Christ,

    Rory S. Russell

  12. Danny June 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    andrew Ryan
    June 6th at 8:18 am
    Why presume that science will never answer these questions? Science already HAS decent answers to at least 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 and 14. I’ve seen whole books explaining some of those questions if you’re genuinely interested. As for question 7, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then it makes no sense to ask where it comes from it could well be eternal.
    Finally, even if science could not answer any of these questions (which it can) then God did it is not the default answer. In fact, “God did it” is not actually an answer to ANY of these questions, as it just poses further questions. eg 1) Why did God make you, 4) HOW does God determine good and evil, 14) What did God make matter out of?

    Danny said,
    I was thinking about Andrew Ryan’s answers to the above questions and I noticed he told us that pseudo “science” has some of the answers to some of the questions and I also noticed he didn’t share any of those “answers” with us. Then he turned it around like Jay did asking where did God come from. What they are NOT seeing is that we have these two world views, both are religious and as I asked Jay which is easier to believe, an all powerful God who is not subject or held to the laws he created, in other words, lives outside of them. OR did nothing create everything which is not subject to the laws it didn’t create since nothing can’t create laws and everything else or can it? The evolutionist will tell us that it can and it did. They MUST believe in THEIR faith to do away with God, they have no choice. They use the words, “could have happen, probably did happen, maybe, we think, it is possible that this happened”, etc. It is just a blind faith with nothing to back it up, nothing in reality.

    Danny Bunn

  13. Danny June 6, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    I can’t get on here as often as I would like to but I thought Jay Liverstitch’s answer was funny. He said most of the questions are easy to answer with science and just about all of his answers were to do with his faith. I was also readying Stephen’s comment, Stephen, they can’t answer the questions in reality so they give “answers” like Jay did which are no answers. Just guesses and poor guesses to say the least. Then they seek to turn it around, where did God come from? God came from nowhere since there wasn’t anywhere or anything for God to come from. He has always been, he is God! He is the one who created all the laws so we could study things out, if there was no intelligent Creator, nothing would be worth studying since there would be no absolutes hence no reason to study since it might change completely tomorrow. There would be no science or anything else if there wasn’t God who created the laws that we study when he created everything. The evolutionists have a “supernatural nothing” which created everything and Christians have a supernatural God who created everything. Which one takes less faith to believe. When a person says that nothing created everything, he really said nothing and I mean nothing. Even Darwin admitted that his theory would completely fall apart if it were proven that all the animal or whatever could not come into being over a long period of time, part by part, so to speak. Irreducible complexity has falsified Pastor Darwin’s theory. This is a totally incredible, complex universe and deep down all evolutionists KNOW that it didn’t happen by chance. They are not stupid, just blinded. I think about the things that bees, birds, ants, on and on we go, the things they can do is unbelievable. He is an awesome God.

  14. John Bebbington June 6, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Stephen,

    In the northern hemisphere many old chimney stacks built with lime mortar tend to lean towards the south.

    Without any sensory organs or rudimentary nervous systems how could they possibly know they exist north of the equator?

    The answer, of course, is that they don’t. Their distortion is caused by a physical phenomenon. Similarly, there are a great many examples of primitive organisms without rudimentary nervous systems which have evolved cells sensitive to particular simple stimuli. Why would such cells have to know or understand why or how they were sensitive to such stimuli before the organism was able to take advantage of the survival benefit such sensitivity might offer?

  15. Caleb Fielding June 6, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    what was the first organ to develop in a living creature?

    What was the purpose of the organ?

    why are creatures so dadgum good at adapting. I mean there are a lot of animals, and especially humans that are able to adapt change so well it begs the question what is the point of evolution, when according to the text book it will take evolution 2 million years to do what a few hours, days, weeks of adaptation did.

    why do birds, bees, and beavers (etc) know how to build stuff with no education, but it takes us humans a very long time to learn anything, why dont we get a genetic memory, like every other builder species.

  16. Truth_Seeker H June 7, 2011 at 1:49 am #

    Col 1:16 – 17

    For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

    And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

  17. Truth_Seeker H June 7, 2011 at 3:59 am #

    1. Why does the frequency & intensity of natural disasters increase ?
    2. Who laid out the 7 day week time frame?
    3. If consciousness of right and wrong makes us different from animals, when did that happen and how?
    4. Is any human without any fault?
    5. Is there any perfect human? One that can never make any mistake?
    6. If the country law’s determines what’s right and wrong what to do and what not, and non-perfect humans made the rules and can change these rules whenever they want or need, what will you do if there is a new law that you don’t agree on?

    2 Sam 22:31
    [As for] God, his way [is] perfect; the word of the LORD [is] tried: he [is] a buckler to all them that trust in him.
    For who [is] God, save the LORD? and who [is] a rock, save our God?
    God [is] my strength [and] power: and he maketh my way perfect.
    He maketh my feet like hinds’ [feet]: and setteth me upon my high places.

  18. Duane Hamish June 7, 2011 at 7:14 am #

    This could be fun. How about I try?

    Why do Christians have no problem believing 6000 years ago man was created from dirt, woman from his rib, they lived in a garden where all animals were herbivorous and it never rained, that they were convinced by a talking snake into eating a fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil the result of which was the rending of the very molecules of the entire universe into decay, but dismiss real science as “fantasy”?

    Why do Christians latch on to some science with a death grip while dismissing other science just because it disagrees with their fantasy?

    Why do Christians believe an ancient text riddled with contradictions (inventing spurious, ad hoc stories to justify them doesn’t make them not contradictions), errors, alterations and anachronisms to be of divine origin?

    Why do Christians claim miracles happen yet never can present one, or when they do they are usually mundane coincidences, improbable but possible events, or ambiguous events that were misunderstood by them but unravel under any real scrutiny?

    Why do Christians claim miraculous healings but only things that can’t actually be seen or verified to have not been simply placebo effect or the body healing itself, or even medical intervention?

    Why does God “answer prayer” with the same probability as chance?

    Why can’t Christians move mountains?

    Why do Christians insist they know God is real and the Bible true but retreat to “faith” when pressed on how they know it rather than offer any evidence?

    Why do Christians insist that their particular branch is the only ones that have it right? If God actually was behind the Bible, wouldn’t He have made it clear enough that there would be no confusion or doctrinal differences?

    Why do Christians believe a person who has had no science education whatsoever (let alone credentials) and consistently misrepresents it to be right when he tells them all branches of science are wrong based upon nothing more than it doesn’t agree with a 2500 year old mythology rather than those that spend their entire lives dedicated to actually working to understand their respective fields?

    Why do Christians think science is decided by verbal debate and the winner is the one who is most rehearsed?

    Why do Christians think that Sye’s Presupposition Apologetic argument has any merit whatsoever?

    Why do Christians dismiss the horrid or ridiculous aspects of God and their religion by saying they don’t follow the Old Testament anymore, except when they want to justify their current bigotry?

    What did homosexuals ever do to them?

    Why do Christians think “God did it” actually explains anything, and criticize science when it can’t explain every detail?

    Why do Christians think quoting the Bible will get them anywhere with non-believers?

    Why do Christians believe spending eternity being a sycophant to a tyrant that wants us to worship Him or burn in Hell is desirable?

    If God loves us why does he threaten us with Hell if we don’t believe a story that is irrational and from questionable sources?

  19. andrew Ryan June 7, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    Danny: “I was thinking about Andrew Ryan’s answers to the above questions and I noticed he told us that pseudo “science has some of the answers to some of the questions ”

    No I didn’t, and anyone reading my posts can clearly see that I never claimed that pseudo science had some of the answers. I said that science had some of the answers, not pseudo science. It doesn’t help your cause if you have to lie about what I actually said.

    “OR did nothing create everything which is not subject to the laws it didn’t create since nothing can’t create laws and everything else or can it? The evolutionist will tell us that it can and it did.”

    ‘The evolutionist’? Which ‘evolutionist’ is this? Can you name him or her? I presume you’re not talking about ALL people who accept the evidence for evolution, as such a large group of people might have widely differing views on the start of the universe. Given that the majority of those who accept evolution are theists, it would be nonsense to generalise that they all believe the universe created itself.

    By the way, does ‘Truth seeker’ get a free pass on the site’s rule that we have to post under real names?

  20. Jack Napper June 7, 2011 at 12:35 pm #

    Where does the information ATCG come from in DNA?

    Rory —
    These are chemical not “information”; unless you wish to actually provide us with a proper definition of “biological information”. ATCG are the chemicals adenine (abbreviated A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T). Like all creationist question the problem isn’t answering it. The problem is trying to stop laughing at you trying to sound intelligent.

    Why is life still no involving?

    I’m guessing you mean EVOLVING. Populations evolve all the time.

    Why do we loose variations of animales and plants, (species, even though I don’t like that word), but we never seen one come into excistance?

    We do all the time. However, what we don’t see is what creationists expect/ us to see/challenge us to find. Heck, that would actually disprove evolutionary theory.

    If only life can create life i.e. man and woman=baby, aslo called biogenesis, why do you think non-life can creat life.

    You are referring to fully formed organisms I assume. All chemicals are essentially non-living. It’s how they have come together that makes them into a living being. Along with spelling it appears you failed chemistry too. what creationists expect to see is very odd indeed. No you can’t pour shampoo and gasoline into a bath tub and expect Batman to pop out.

    what was the first organ to develop in a living creature?,/b>

    Caleb –
    The truthful answer is “I don’t know…YET”. However, I would think that among the first would have to deal with waste management. It was likely rather simple and not a complete fully formed organ from day one.

    What was the purpose of the organ?

    OK continuing to throw out garbage is really nothing more than playing games. I have already answered this question. So the question goes to you as to whether or not your religion can. I’m guessing you’re gonna put forth the same answer.

    why are creatures so dadgum good at adapting. I mean there are a lot of animals, and especially humans that are able to adapt change so well it begs the question what is the point of evolution, when according to the text book it will take evolution 2 million years to do what a few hours, days, weeks of adaptation did.

    They are not. This is why we have so many organizations that attempt to save endangered species. You have done more to show why natural selection is valid.

    why do birds, bees, and beavers (etc) know how to build stuff with no education, but it takes us humans a very long time to learn anything, why dont we get a genetic memory, like every other builder species.

    Why don’t tigers and lions do too? Why must their parents show them how to hunt or build habitats? Come back when with something other than a flawed question. I suggest starting with looking up the definitions of genetic memory and instinct. You might fall over from shock so I suggest sitting down while you read.

  21. Jack Napper June 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    1. Why does the frequency & intensity of natural disasters increase ?

    They are not. YOUTUBE: If the world is ending why aren’t creationists throwing a party?

    2. Who laid out the 7 day week time frame?

    Some of the first calendar makers. This question made me laugh really hard.

    3. If consciousness of right and wrong makes us different from animals, when did that happen and how?

    It doesn’t. Many animals share this with us. We made Ray Comfort look like a fool with this question if you wanna check out his blog.

    4. Is any human without any fault?

    Could you be more specific? Moral? Genetic? ???

    5. Is there any perfect human? One that can never make any mistake?

    Doubtful. Is there a purpose to this question?

    6. If the country law’s determines what’s right and wrong what to do and what not, and non-perfect humans made the rules and can change these rules whenever they want or need, what will you do if there is a new law that you don’t agree on?

    This silly question I get asked by Creationists makes me wonder if they have been living under a rock separate from the rest of society. Please learn how laws and government work. A word of advice…STAY IN SCHOOL.

    Here’s a question to CSE. Why do you throw such a fit about people using screen names rather than full names for everyone except those who believe as you? I seriously doubt Truth_Seeker H is his/her real name.

    • CSE June 8, 2011 at 9:07 am #

      Jack and Andrew,
      We have tried to correct “Truth_Seeker H”s screen name, but there seems to be an issue with it changing.

      Truth_Seeker H,
      Please attempt to change your name when logging in to comment.

  22. Stephen Holshouser June 7, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    John B,

    You’re really going to compare the degenerative effects the sun and weather have on chimney’s with the useful, intricate design of the senses? You needed to give us an example of the elements building a chimney for your argument to work. We already knew that whatever you leave outside will eventually be ruined.

    Out of your “great many examples of primitive organisms without rudimentary nervous systems which have evolved cells…” please list ONE, specifically. I am afraid that what you consider to be the most simple, rudimentary senses are, indeed, vastly complex.

    Are you asserting that the many different parts of the sensory systems gradually evolved with no apparent use until one day it all finally came together to be of use to the creature?

    No organism could benefit from any part of a sensory system unless all parts of it were fully interconnected and operational… also keep in mind that the organism must have a highly complex system to respond to the stimulus, otherwise the ability to detect an incoming stimulus would be USELESS (just another one of the endless chicken/egg problems for evolution) And certainly, no organism could survive and reproduce without the ability to sense its internal and external environment and have the capacity to react to it.

  23. Jay Liverstitch June 7, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Danny said “I can’t get on here as often as I would like to but I thought Jay Liverstitch’s answer was funny. He said most of the questions are easy to answer with science and just about all of his answers were to do with his faith.

    You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you sthink it means.

    Which one of my answers was grounded in faith exactly? Seriously, can you find one?

    You continued, “they can’t answer the questions in reality so they give “answers like Jay did which are no answers. … Then they seek to turn it around, where did God come from?”

    I’ll note that I didn’t simply retort with this question; first, I answered his question, then I offered this as a counter question. I wonder if you are able to comprehend my intention for doing that? I would very much like to hear your understanding of why I would, as you put it “seek to turn it around”.

  24. Pablo Cruz June 7, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Matter is eternal?? So, I believe “In the beginning God…” and you believe “in the beginning Dirt..”

    No evidence of a miracle?? The fact that we even exist is a miracle!! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all things out of nothing. It makes more sense than “nothing creating something out of nothing”.

    I find it funny how just about any scientific article about evolution is presented as an assumption, develop a hypothesis, come up with plausible explanations to fit their hypothetical assumption, call it science, and other people post their comments on forums like this one, and try to convince others that evolution is a scientific fact!!!

    Evolutionists are a walking contradiction. If we only live and die with no purpose and/or meaning of life, then why waste your time trying to either convince us of what you believe to be true?? Why does it matter to you?

    I think the answer is twofold:
    1. You are trying to mock us
    2. You are hoping to find an answer that makes sense

    I think the real question is this:
    What if your wrong??

    I know my answer, what’s yours??

  25. Jennifer Preston June 7, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Rory Russell wrote:
    “concidering most cosmologist and astrologist”

    I think you mean cosmologists and astronomers. Cosmology is genuine science. Astrology is rubbish, bollocks (CSE, if “Bollocks” is not an acceptable word on this site feel free to remove it and just include the word “Rubbish”. In Britain, “Bollocks” isn’t really counted as a swear word) etc. (Astrology is the whole tell your future from your star sign thing. Like I said, absolute rubbish)

    Danny wrote:
    “They use the words, “could have happen, probably did happen, maybe, we think, it is possible that this happened, etc.”

    Do I need to go through what a scientific theory is AGAIN? I’m not going to. I’ve gone through it enough times on this sight. But a scientific theory has to be able to be proved wrong. You can have all the evidence and observation in the world confirming a particular theory, so that the theory can be taken as true, but you always have to be able to falsify a theory. For example, for evolution, you could find a fossilised bunny in the cambrian era. As far as I’m aware, no fossilised bunnies or guinea pigs have ever been found. But just because you find something that goes against your theory does not mean that the whole thing is wrong. It may just need some tweeking. I don’t believe in evolution. I accept the evidence and conclude that it is currently our best explanation for all the facts and observations.

    But this idea of falsifying theories is exactly what pushes God and Intelligent Designer out of the science classroom. You can’t falsify God, i.e. you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist.

    Danny also wrote:
    “which is easier to believe, an all powerful God who is not subject or held to the laws he created, in other words, lives outside of them. OR did nothing create everything which is not subject to the laws it didn’t create since nothing can’t create laws and everything else or can it? The evolutionist will tell us that it can and it did. They MUST believe in THEIR faith to do away with God, they have no choice.”

    Okay, I accept evolution by natural selection. I accept the Big Bang theory (well the expansion of space-time). I’m an evolutionist. But I believe Jesus died and rose again to save my sins, which means I believe whatever happened, God did it. So according to Stephen I am both a creationist (albeit not a biblical creationist, but in the sense that I believe God made science happen) and an evolutionist at the same time, It’s just I recognise that my belief in God is just that, A belief without evidence. Just because I accept evolution doesn’t mean I have to reject God, does it?

    So here is my challenge to the creationists, the one’s that think it’s a valid scientific theory anyway. (I did ask this a couple of blogs back and no one answered me). It’s all very well trying to prove and give possible ways of disproving God by trying to prove the Earth is young. Even if the evidence pointed to the Earth being young, it still wouldn’t be concrete evidence for an Intelligent Designer or God, God/Intelligent Designer would still be faith/belief based. How would you disprove God/Intelligent Designer? A repeatable experiment would be helpful.

    Like I said, Intelligent Design should NOT be taught in a science classroom. Religious classroom, Yes, Science Classroom, No. Unless someone can successfully rise to my challenge.

  26. Carl M June 7, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    How many questions will Science never answer?

    How it possible to determine the limits of future science? A more accurate statement would be “questions science can not presently answer”. But, as we shall see, Eric’s declaration elsewhere that he “loves science” is not matched by his knowledge of science.

    Why am I here?

    Science says: because your Mom and Dad had a special cuddle.

    What happens when you die?

    Science says: you decompose

    What is the purpose of my life?

    Science says: biologically speaking, to reproduce.

    What determines “Good” and “Evil”?

    Science says: social customs and game theory

    Where did love come from?

    Science says: social bonding behaviour of social animals, specifically, hormones such as oxytocin

    Why does mankind abuse and kill its own?

    Science says: competition for resources, psychopathic behaviour, social competition.

    Where did the first teeny-weeny molecule of matter come from?

    Science says: condensation out of the intitial “soup” of the Big Bang

    Does a physical world exist beyond my mind?

    Science says: yes

    Why are there male and female?

    Science says: sexual reproduction has advantage of gene mixing

    Why does it take both sexes to create a new life?

    Science says: this is not true. But for sexual reproducers it is because DNA is a double helix

    What is life?

    Science says: capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

    Where did laws come from?

    Science says: scientific laws are abstract descriptors of the properties under study, therefor laws come from humans.

    How did Time, Space and Matter come into existence?

    Science says: see M-theory

    How did something come from nothing?

    Science says: quantum probability.

  27. Carl M June 7, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    Just for giggles, here are some questions for “Creation Science”

    Why are “99%” of the public figures, speakers, evangelists of the Young Earth Movement white males? Where are the women? Where are the Asians, African Americans, etc?

    Why do all Biblical Literalists with science training testify they became a Literalist before their “science” confirmed their position? For example, why are no Young Earth geologists stating, “I came to believe in a young Earth because my data kept returning an age of less than 10,000 years but I didn’t change my religious position until later”? In other words, why does the religious conversion always occur before the “science”?

    Why don’t Young Earth Creationist websites (eg AIG, ICR) provide links to mainstream museums, science publications or general science knowledge?

    Why are the major Young Earth Creationist organizations (ICR, AIG) based in the United States of America?

    Why is there no attempt at discovering the actual process of Creation by followers of Creation Science? Does this reluctance make the phrase Creation Science an oxymoron?

    Why do those Young Earth Creationist organizations which claim to be applying science (ICR, AIG) demand members sign contracts with the clauses like, “”By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”[1]

    Why are there no companies listed on a stock exchange which use Young Earth geology to explore for oil and gas?

  28. Duane Hamish June 7, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    @Truth_Seeker H June 7th at 3:59 am

    1. Why does the frequency & intensity of natural disasters increase ?
    2. Who laid out the 7 day week time frame?
    3. If consciousness of right and wrong makes us different from animals, when did that happen and how?
    4. Is any human without any fault?
    5. Is there any perfect human? One that can never make any mistake?
    6. If the country law’s determines what’s right and wrong what to do and what not, and non-perfect humans made the rules and can change these rules whenever they want or need, what will you do if there is a new law that you don’t agree on?

    1. If there is indeed any change, it is Climate Change/Global Warming. Whether it is the natural cycle or human caused, it’s behind the intensity of weather events. Earthquakes are simple plate tectonics. Do you think it is God punishing single mothers and homosexuals?

    2. There is no 7 day week time frame other than what some cultures have decided. Others had different weeks. It’s all arbitrary and man-made.

    3. Who knows? I’m not sure it is such a cut and dry event. My dog knows between right and wrong. Ever see that video of the dog that knew he was guilty of getting into the kitty treats? My dog does that when he knows he’s been bad.

    4. For what? To whom? I don’t understand the question.

    5. What does that even mean? Everyone makes mistakes.

    6. This is the dumbest question ever. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. I don’t agree with a lot of laws.

  29. John Bebbington June 7, 2011 at 11:06 pm #

    Danny,

    You wrote:

    He is the one who created all the laws so we could study things out, if there was no intelligent Creator, nothing would be worth studying since there would be no absolutes hence no reason to study since it might change completely tomorrow.

    Please would you state a physical law which you claim to have been created by God and describe what would be the case if the law did not exist.

  30. Truth_Seeker H June 8, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    Duane Hamish,

    Your post confirms the base of evolutionist fears of Creation. The problem is not believing in creation but believing in God whom you feel did nothing for you or did not help you in some point of your life……same story:

    “Prayers” – God knows what’s best for you – praying to win the lotto is not going to happen. Why does everybody always expect a YES if they pray? Is God not allowed to say no? He is God not you His god!

  31. Duane Hamish June 8, 2011 at 4:15 am #

    @Rory Russell June 6th at 5:18 pm

    The Questions are are good and Logical. I have some more to add maybe a scientiest can answer.
    Where does the information ATCG come from in DNA?
    Why is life still no involving?
    Why do we loose variations of animales and plants, (species, even though I don’t like that word), but we never seen one come into excistance?
    If only life can create life i.e. man and woman=baby, aslo called biogenesis, why do you think non-life can creat life.

    Define “information”. Otherwise, our genetics are derived from our parents. No “magic” is necessary, nor does it answer any question. The alternative is ignorance, not God.
    How do you know life isn’t still evolving? We are actually seeing it right now in African elephants. After years of being hunted for their tusks, elephants are now appearing with smaller tusks.
    Also, we do see new variations of animals and plants. We do it ourselves with selective breeding. Evolution doesn’t work like you think it does. Dogs don’t suddenly give birth to rabbits. But look at something like Great Danes and Chihuahuas. They cannot breed naturally. Given time and continued genetic isolation, mutations and genetic drift will not allow them to breed at all, even artificially. Over time, with no exchange of genetics, and presuming they were in the wild facing different environmental pressures (this is just a thought experiment, as real Chihuahuas would have been kept by people), they will eventually drift apart and you might not even recognize them to be the same species. This is what happened to earlier species. After an isolation of breeding populations over time, they each drifted away from each other and became different. Given enough time, those changes can be quite dramatic. We can tell which species branched off from others and approximately when through the study of genetics and physiology. Take a look at a phylogenetic tree and you can see where the splits were.

    Jay Liverstitch: You are blind. 1 electric signals in the brain do exist but do not allow the conclusion that they controle your conciance, infact all they are is what they say they are signals, move hand, type with fingers, got a headach from malnutrition, turn head, look right or left and so on.

    Electrical and chemical signals are consciousness. We can study brain damaged patients to see that physical conditions affect the personality. We have no reason to believe mind is separate from body.

    2. I would like to hear the Christian answer for “How can God come from nothing? as I’m sure you believe that nothing created God? you (Jay Liverstitch) God is Omnipotant and Omniscent, you are sure we be nothing created God? lol is that a pun?

    And we know this, how? More fantasy and magic?

    3.You can’t explain the universe, you can’t even explain you own thoughts and logic to make you believe in “evolution” and The Big Bang is du-du- dumb thing to even bring up, concidering most cosmologist and astrologist have abandund this for other dumb hyposathises.

    It was magicked into existence is not an explanation. We have evidence for the Big Bang. What evidence is there for God? The argument from ignorance is not an answer.

    4. to answer your 10. You are talking about cells or bacteria, not animales or humans, even insects have a queen, and they have to have a male at first. But while on cells how about answer the Bacterial Flagellum that has been proven to have Irreducible complexity, and thus could not have come from “evolution” because it could not gradually come into excistance accept to come all at once. Read Darwins Black Box Micheal J. Behe they probably sell it on this website.

    No, we’re talking about animals such as komodo dragons and boa constrictors. They have been known to reproduce asexually. And the Bacterial Flagellum has NOT been proven to be irreducibly complex. Nothing has. Behe and his bacterial flagellum was demolished at the Dover trial. Behe was forced to admit that his definition of science that included Intelligent Design was so broad that it included astrology. Regardless, irreducible complexity is not positive evidence for design. One must jump to that conclusion with the argument from incredulity (“I can’t believe it’s possible, is not evidence.)

    Ultimatly Atheist do not have near the same answers as Creationist. Evolution is not even a good theory, in contradicts more Laws (1 and 2 Thermole Dynamics just the main) than it approves of.

    No, atheists do not have the same answers as Creationists. We would rather not just make stuff up because it makes us feel better. If we don’t know, we say so. If we have a pretty good idea, we will state it, conditionally. One thing we do not do is claim absolute knowledge based upon no evidence, or the “evidence” of ancient pre-scientific texts that got changed every time a local church had doctrine differences. Yes, that’s right. Your Bible is not the pristine document you think it is. There are many additions and alterations before the Middle Ages..

    I am willing to send anyone information and referance or explain more, just email me, maybe you don’t have money to buy the books. but here are some The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design By Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (University of California at Berkeley Biology and Theology at Yale) or Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris Ph.D. and President for ICR that book you can buy on this website drdino.com for like 11 $ if not less. otherwise rebornrussell@gmail.com I will answere questions not from me but from the experts with refrences.
    In the Love of Jesus Christ,
    Rory S. Russell

    Please try reading something by someone who doesn’t have to sign a statement of faith, biasing his findings.

  32. Jack Napper June 8, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    No evidence of a miracle?? The fact that we even exist is a miracle!!

    Nice argument from ignorance. Is that the best you’ve got?

    God created all things out of nothing. It makes more sense than “nothing creating something out of nothing”

    Apparently not as you’ve followed up with a strawman.

    I find it funny how just about any scientific article about evolution is presented as an assumption, develop a hypothesis, come up with plausible explanations to fit their hypothetical assumption, call it science, and other people post their comments on forums like this one, and try to convince others that evolution is a scientific fact!!!

    Yep that’s right. It’s all explanation. No research. No genetic testing no nothing. Perhaps you would be better served to read more than popular press article or simply the abstracts of scientific papers. Then again this may be why Creationists post things like “scientists have learned” some 10 years later. It takes them that long to read an article and try to grasp what’s in it.

    Evolutionists are a walking contradiction. If we only live and die with no purpose and/or meaning of life, then why waste your time trying to either convince us of what you believe to be true?? Why does it matter to you?

    I think the answer is twofold:
    1. You are trying to mock us
    2. You are hoping to find an answer that makes sense

    I think the real question is this:
    What if your wrong??

    I know my answer, what’s yours??

    Thank you for reminding me of a wonderful series on YouTube title Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. Does than well you guys keep going back to ever dry up?

  33. John Bebbington June 8, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    No you can’t pour shampoo and gasoline into a bath tub and expect Batman to pop out.

    If some-one poured such a mixture into my bath I would pop out soon enough. But, then, I’m not Batman.

  34. John Bebbington June 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm #

    Stephen Holshouser wrote:

    John B,

    You’re really going to compare the degenerative effects the sun and weather have on chimney’s with ? You needed to give us an example of the elements building a chimney for your argument to work. We already knew that whatever you leave outside will eventually be ruined.

    You are making incorrect suppositions. The sun isn’t ruining anything in relation to this particular phenomenon. I’ve aready given you sufficient information concerning the chimney’s elements; if lime mortar is involved then the other element will be brickwork. I’ll keep you guessing as to what is happenening.

    And, no, I do not compare this phenomenon with “the useful, intricate design of the senses”. You are again making an incorrect assumption. Simple organisms react to simple stimuli as a result of physical and chemical processes – as does the old chimney stack. The action of the old chimney in bending toward the south is akin in a very simple way to an amoeba reacting to an electric current, light or mechanical shock. There are differences, of course, the major one being that an ameoba can return to its previous state once the stimuli is removed whereas the chimney stack will not re-straighten when the sun disappears at night time.

    Out of your “great many examples of primitive organisms without rudimentary nervous systems which have evolved cells please list ONE, specifically. I am afraid that what you consider to be the most simple, rudimentary senses are, indeed, vastly complex.

    I don’t disagree – but magic isn’t involved.

    Are you asserting that the many different parts of the sensory systems gradually evolved with no apparent use until one day it all finally came together to be of use to the creature?

    Absolutely not. Your misunderstanding is in assuming that a simpler precursor to a modern structure can be of no use to the structure’s precursor. Just because my brain is more developed than that of a bee doesn’t mean that a bee’s brain isn’t perfectly adequate for the use to which it is put. Just because a 1920’s car engine wasn’t as complex or efficient as that of a modern car does not mean it was useless.

    No organism could benefit from any part of a sensory system unless all parts of it were fully interconnected and operational…

    To maintain such a hypothesis you will have to first define “fully interconnected and operational”. An amoeba doesn’t have a brain but its abilities, such as they are, are perfectly adequate for its life-style.

    also keep in mind that the organism must have a highly complex system to respond to the stimulus, otherwise the ability to detect an incoming stimulus would be USELESS (just another one of the endless chicken/egg problems for evolution)

    Why useless? My car reacts to all sorts of stimuli using very simple mechanisms indeed.

    And certainly, no organism could survive and reproduce without the ability to sense its internal and external environment and have the capacity to react to it.

    That’s life.

  35. John Bebbington June 8, 2011 at 11:47 am #

    Stupid question:

    Who laid out the 7 day week time frame?

    To which Jack Napper responded:

    Some of the first calendar makers. This question made me laugh really hard.

    Quite right, too. Also, to the stupid questioner, why is the length of the year not a simple multiple of 7-day weeks instead of an imperfectly-designed 365.243 days?

  36. Duane Hamish June 8, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    @Truth_Seeker H June 8th at 2:31 am

    Duane Hamish,

    Your post confirms the base of evolutionist fears of Creation. The problem is not believing in creation but believing in God whom you feel did nothing for you or did not help you in some point of your life same story:

    “Prayers God knows what’s best for you praying to win the lotto is not going to happen. Why does everybody always expect a YES if they pray? Is God not allowed to say no? He is God not you His god!

    Yes, that’s it. I hate God and refuse to believe a fairy story version of our origins because He didn’t give me that pony I prayed for. If I can take something Eric said, it’s interesting you jump on just one of my questions. I was expecting that exact response. At what point does it occur to you that you are rationalizing why God doesn’t answer prayers? God does not answer prayers because God is imaginary. God didn’t help you win that football game. God didn’t help you find your car keys. God certainly didn’t help anyone in any of the recent weather or earthquake disasters. Prayer is a ritual designed to reinforce the groupthink brainwashing. There’s a very specific reason it has the cadence and repetition that it does.

  37. John Bebbington June 9, 2011 at 1:41 am #

    Pablo Cruz wrtote:

    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all things out of nothing.

    Not necessarily. My bible says he created a formless earth and then played about with it. Making things out of something is not creation. And, given the equivalence between matter and energy, creating something which is formless is creating nothing more than energy.

    We know that God did not create all the elements because they are still being produced in stellar processes today. Indeed, if this was not the case then we would not be alive because it is the excess energy produced when hydrogen nucleii fuse to form helium which powers the sun.

    It makes more sense than “nothing creating something out of nothing.

    But what if the total energy in the universe sums to zero? Then what did God create?

    I find it funny how just about any scientific article about evolution is presented as an assumption, develop a hypothesis, come up with plausible explanations to fit their hypothetical assumption, call it science, and other people post their comments on forums like this one, and try to convince others that evolution is a scientific fact!!!

    Gibberish. The “plausible explanations” are the hypotheses. But without material evidence to support the hypotheses or, better, to refute them there can be no scientific advance. The theory of evolution relies for its validity on a vast body of evidence emanating from many scientific disciplines and you and your like-minded chums squawking away in minor opposition to such evidence are irrelevant to the discussion.

    Also, you should check out the meaning of “plausible” if I were you as I don’t think you intended to agree with a rationalist viewpoint.

    Evolutionists are a walking contradiction. If we only live and die with no purpose and/or meaning of life, then why waste your time trying to either convince us of what you believe to be true?? Why does it matter to you?

    I think the answer is twofold:

    1. You are trying to mock us

    No, you mock yourselves. We evolutionists just try to point out the obvious errors in your understanding of the subject.

    2. You are hoping to find an answer that makes sense

    Well, if that were true, we have come to the wrong place.

    I think the real question is this:
    What if your wrong??

    I know my answer, what’s yours??

    The whole point of science is that we know we are always, if not completely wrong, incomplete in our knowledge and understanding. That is why science is such fun and why we pity YECists for their joy in their own ignorance not just of science but in the historical foundations of the religion which they suppose denies them the right to enlightenment.

  38. Corne Hees June 9, 2011 at 1:55 am #

    Hi John Beb,

    YOU SAID: Also, to the stupid questioner, why is the length of the year not a simple multiple of 7-day weeks instead of an imperfectly-designed 365.243 days?

    Firstly I don’t like you typing: “stupid questioner” it’s called “defamation of character you don’t know whom you are typing to!!!!

    I respect you and your views, respect mine to. First signs of losing an argument is when someone uses name calling.

    Your “very smart question: ( imperfectly-designed 365.243 days )

    The Egyptians invented the year time frame according to the flooding of the Nile, later was taken over and adjusted by the Romans. So yet again, you see the humans are imperfect.

    My next question to you:

    The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors. WHY?

  39. Duane Hamish June 9, 2011 at 3:02 am #

    @Pablo Cruz June 7th at 2:10 pm

    Matter is eternal?? So, I believe “In the beginning God and you believe “in the beginning Dirt..

    No dirt until a little over 4 billion years ago. The raw material 13.7 billion years ago.

    No evidence of a miracle?? The fact that we even exist is a miracle!! In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. God created all things out of nothing. It makes more sense than “nothing creating something out of nothing.

    Look at that. You are jumping to “magic from the word go. We don’t know that it was a miracle. We have some pretty good ideas, but even if it never gets solved, it’s still no reason to jump to magic. What else can you think of that could only have the explanation of being magic? Anything? If there is nothing, then why should we make the assumption the first cause was supernatural?

    I find it funny how just about any scientific article about evolution is presented as an assumption, develop a hypothesis, come up with plausible explanations to fit their hypothetical assumption, call it science, and other people post their comments on forums like this one, and try to convince others that evolution is a scientific fact!!!

    I find it funny how people in the year 2011 can still believe ancient fairy tales with OBVIOUS metaphorical aspects (Tree with the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil) and try to pass it off as if it were true. What’s next? Jack and the Beanstalk?

    Evolutionists are a walking contradiction. If we only live and die with no purpose and/or meaning of life, then why waste your time trying to either convince us of what you believe to be true?? Why does it matter to you?
    I think the answer is twofold:
    1. You are trying to mock us
    2. You are hoping to find an answer that makes sense

    I swear, I will never understand this attitude. Why do you feel your life has no purpose or meaning unless there is an imaginary being floating around up there? I often say that religion is brain washing and this is one of the aspects of it. You are made to feel worthless without it. Religion insists you have a disease and they have the cure. Your pastor has no more idea about an afterlife than any of the rest of us.
    It would be different if you kept your Jesus nonsense to yourself, like bowling or square dancing. But you are trying to make reality fit your mythology and think I’m supposed to believe it, too. You have the right to your own opinions and beliefs, but you don’t have the right to your own reality. This site is responsible for more than its fair share of misinformation and we need to correct it. Think Jesus created the world? How about some POSITIVE evidence for it? Saying the world is too complex and you can’t understand how it happened is not evidence. Nor is picking at what you think are anomalies with evolution or cosmology or geology. If you are right and have the truth behind you, why do you need to always lie about the other side’s positions? Eric or Kent has NEVER presented anything but a straw man version of evolution or cosmology. My favorite is when Eric insists that “evolutionists believe that the universe was created “from nothing 20 billion years ago (he’s been corrected on this date 100s of times), then nothing happened until 4.5 billion years ago when the earth spontaneously appeared out of nothing. Find me the scientist who says that. “Nothing happened for 20 billion years? So, the entire history of the universe doesn’t count until the earth appeared? How arrogant is that? The universe got along fine without us (and still does. We are far too distant from anything but our own solar system to make any difference to the rest of the universe) and will continue to do so.
    But, yes. We are here to mock. Same as Eric and Kent do whenever they insist evolution teaches we came from rocks. The difference is, we don’t have to make up lies about the other side to mock them. Your actual beliefs are quite enough to mock with no alterations. I’m also trying to find an answer that makes sense. Why do otherwise rational people believe in magic when they can’t point to any time it ever occurred outside of their book of fables? Even our esteemed evolutionist theists in here, how can they be rational and skeptical in their regular lives but still find this little corner of their minds that seems to be immune from cognitive dissonance?

    I think the real question is this:
    What if your wrong??
    I know my answer, what’s yours??

    Considering most of you in here believe CATHOLICS are going to Hell, how do you know YOU are right? What if Yahweh really exists and it turns out the whole Jesus thing is simply a cult that got big? You actually think a human being is God. Old Testament Yahweh would flail you alive for such blasphemy. The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him. Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment! Calling Jesus “God is not a loophole. That was decided by committee a couple hundred years after his death. What if God is actually Allah? What if God is Hindu? Why would God be impressed if I faked believing in Him for reward in Heaven or to avoid punishment in Hell? This is why Pascal’s Wager is worthless as an argument. And it’s still an admission that you really don’t know and are going by wishful thinking.

  40. Jennifer Preston June 9, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    Corne Hees wrote:

    “The Egyptians invented the year time frame according to the flooding of the Nile, later was taken over and adjusted by the Romans. So yet again, you see the humans are imperfect. ”

    Um, The length of a year is determined by how long it takes the Earth to go once around the Sun. It was not invented by anyone. The 0.243 is added to one day over 4 years, so every four years we have a leap year. Contrary to what CSE say, this does not mean the Earth is slowing down. This is the correcting of the accumulation of error from the fact that the time it takes the Earth to go exactly once around the Sun is not a lovely perfect whole number.

    A day is time it takes for the Earth to spin once on its axis (although an interesting piece of research a couple of years or so back showed that the exact length of a day varies by a few milliseconds each day. One explanation for this is the wind pushing or pulling against the mountains)
    A month is the time it takes for the Moon to go once around the Earth. Interestingly, the length of each month, apart from February, is not divisible by 7 either.

  41. Jennifer Preston June 9, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    All athiests may be evolutionists, but not all evolutionists are athiests.

  42. Danny June 9, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    andrew Ryan
    June 7th at 10:10 am
    Danny: “I was thinking about Andrew Ryan’s answers to the above questions and I noticed he told us that pseudo “science” has some of the answers to some of the questions
    No I didn’t, and anyone reading my posts can clearly see that I never claimed that pseudo science had some of the answers. I said that science had some of the answers, not pseudo science. It doesn’t help your cause if you have to lie about what I actually said.
    NOW Danny says,
    Sorry Andrew, I saw that problem after I posted it. I was hoping that enough common sense would be used knowing that I added the word, “pseudo” since anyone should know that you don’t believe evolution is pseudo science but they would know that I believe it is pseudo science. Hopefully anyone reading these posts would KNOW that false science if just that, false. Anyway, instead I am called a liar. Oh well! Anyway I guess it helps your side since they don’t have answers so they must keep aiming as many negative comments at the person(s) presenting truth to get around the issue at hand. I do AGREE with you that science has SOME of the answers but not evolution which is pseudo science. IT is NOT science, even Karl Popper said that it is not falsifiable. Don’t call me a liar again but please read this article that goes into it a little deeper and explains more of his position on it.
    I can’t put the whole article here but here is a little section of it.
    “This, as I see it, is the reason evolution cannot be falsified. It simply has too many excuses built into it. With enough excuses, you can accommodate any amount of data. As I have mentioned previously, similarities among organisms are supposed to be evidence of common ancestry. However, there are many, many examples of similarities between species that evolution cannot accommodate as being linked by a common ancestor with such a trait.”
    He is expounding on Karl Popper’s quote that evolution cannot be falsified, hence it is not science.
    Check out the article at
    blog.drwile.com/?p=1628
    or type in using Google or some search engine,
    Proslogion Thoughts from a scientist who is a Christian (not a Christian Scientist)
    Dr. Jay L. Wile
    Dr. Wile holds an earned PhD from the University of Rochester in Nuclear Chemistry. He is best known for the “Exploring Creation with…” series of textbooks written for junior high and high school students who are being educated at home.

    Danny Bunn

  43. Danny June 9, 2011 at 7:14 pm #

    John BebbingtonJune 7th at 11:06 pm
    Danny,
    You wrote:
    He is the one who created all the laws so we could study things out, if there was no intelligent Creator, nothing would be worth studying since there would be no absolutes hence no reason to study since it might change completely tomorrow.
    Please would you state a physical law which you claim to have been created by God and describe what would be the case if the law did not exist.
    Now Danny says,
    John, I don’t know many times if you are serious or not. At the moment I am thinking about your Adam and Eve comment somewhere on a blog about them being thousands of miles apart or something like that. Anyway, gravity is a law but to an evolutionist I talked to recently that is what is wonderful about evolution, it could change tomorrow, hence no real laws, no law giver, so to speak. The law of gravity could cease tomorrow since there is no absolutes, no law giver. If that law did not exist tomorrow based on evolution we would be floating out in space, I guess. So always have a space suit ready?

    Danny Bunn

  44. Danny June 9, 2011 at 8:04 pm #

    Jay LiverstitchJune 7th at 2:44 pm
    Danny said “I can’t get on here as often as I would like to but I thought Jay Liverstitch’s answer was funny. He said most of the questions are easy to answer with science and just about all of his answers were to do with his faith.
    You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you sthink it means.
    Which one of my answers was grounded in faith exactly? Seriously, can you find one?

    1. I’ll most likely just rot in the ground. Does that mean that a beef cow’s life was more important because it’s purpose does extend past it’s own death, onto the plate of a steak connoisseur? To paraphrase a wise man “It doesn’t matter now, that none of this will matter in a million years. I can still do good, make a positive difference to those I can influence, and ultimately live a fulfilling life, without the need of some life after this one.
    2. What happens when you die? Electrical signals in your brain will cease transmission. Since science has demonstrated that those electrical signals are what constitute your consciousness, it’s reasonable to conclude that your consciousness will cease as well.
    NOW Danny says,
    @Jay
    I read your reply to my reply to you. Most of them. You asked me about faith. We ALL live by faith, all of us. That is a fact that is stranger then fiction, I guess. We speak, walk, live what we believe or we are hypocrites. I went back up to reread your post. I will quote just a little of it now, just the first two, showing you that you are talking your faith NOT science. I could do the same with most of the other answers you gave..

    “To paraphrase a wise man “It doesn’t matter now, that none of this will matter in a million years. I can still do good, make a positive difference to those I can influence, and ultimately live a fulfilling life, without the need of some life after this one.
    @Jay,
    My question to you is why do you want to make a positive difference in anyone’s life? What is positive anyway? What are morals? What is good and bad, right and wrong? Why do they make a difference if there is no God, no law giver? I don’t want to be called a liar again like Andrew called me based on forgetting to put parentheses around the word I added, “pseudo”. Even though I don’t think being a liar would be bad to an evolutionist. Then again, it would be based on what type of evolutionist he is. Is he a theist evolutionist or an agnostic evolutionist. I leave out atheistic evolutionist since they don’t exist. Even the theistic evolutionists that I have talked to don’t believe in a personal God since he let it go by evolution and got out of the picture, so to speak. I don’t know what kind of evolutionist you are so I asked the above questions. I do think by your above words, that you do NOT believe in an afterlife. Why is what you or anyone else does here important. Where did you get the idea that being “a positive influence” is good? If another evolutionist thinks “being a negative influence is good? Is that good? By the way, don’t forget my questions above. What is good and bad and who determines it and how did they do that?
    In no. 2, I quoted from you told us that when our electrical impulses in our brains cease we are dead, hence cease to exist. I find that amusing too. What about when science determined years back when our heart stopped we were dead? Do you have all knowledge? Do you use your brain to its full potential?
    Just curious.
    I wil deal more of your comments if you want me to but I would hope that you can see easily that you are talking your faith, nothing more.

    Danny Bunn

  45. Ariel June 9, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    I have a big question about the whole big bang theory, evolutionists say that everything came from nothing an that the WHOLE universe started from the explosion of “nothing”. . .how can nothing explode? An from the dictionary the word nothing means NOTHING, how can nothing explode and make molecules, gas, the moon, the stars, oxygen, hair on people’s skin etc.???

    If I go into my backyard with a glass jar full of “nothing” will it explode and as a result I’ll get a whole new universe??

    How is that possible and can an evolutionists REALLY explain that??

  46. Corne Hees June 10, 2011 at 5:33 am #

    Jennifer Preston:

    The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him. Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment! Calling Jesus “God is not a loophole.

    Hi Jennifer,

    “The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him”. – VERY TRUE

    “Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment! Calling Jesus “God is not a loophole.” – Not true…..

    Check this verse again:

    John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.

  47. Corne Hees June 10, 2011 at 5:41 am #

    @Duane Hamish June 8th at 6:49 pm

    Have you ever tried to pray?

  48. Pablo Cruz June 10, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    Interesting posts. Full of mockings, misinterpretations, opinions based on worldviews and so on..

    The first verse of the bible God created time space and matter out of nothing and from verse two and on deals with details as a whole. Chapter 2 deals with more specific details in the garden of Eden for Adam.

    Big bang theory also explains how there was nothing, not even space, and that nothingness exploded. The only difference, God is the source where the big bang has nothing..

    Science is knowledge derived from observance, experimentation, testing, repeatable, etc.. Hypothesis has to do with a proposal of an idea, assumption, whatever.. Until the hypothesis can be proven to be a scientific fact, it remains a hypothesis, not science. These hypothesis are derived from a presuppositional assumption.

    John, are you those elements are being created or discovered? There is no problem if certain whatever is newly created, everything is already in place. Every information has a source. God is that source. Without God where does information come from?

    Jack, last time you’be mentioned that I fell in a well, you challenged me to produce evidence about evolutionary Hoaxes with names and stuff. I rose to that challenge giving you links to not one, not report, but three non Christian websites. It is foolish for you to beat that drum again.

    Here’s another question:
    If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?
    Is it the individual? Society? Other?

    I know my answer, what’s yours?

  49. Jennifer Preston June 10, 2011 at 10:26 am #

    Corne Hees wrote:
    “Jennifer Preston:

    The first commandment is you shouldn’t have gods before Him. Christianity breaks the first freaking commandment! Calling Jesus “God is not a loophole.”

    Jennifer writes:
    I didn’t write that…Duane Hamish wrote that near the bottom of the post above mine. I believe that Jesus is God.

    Ariel Wrote:

    “I have a big question about the whole big bang theory, evolutionists say that everything came from nothing an that the WHOLE universe started from the explosion of “nothing. . .how can nothing explode? An from the dictionary the word nothing means NOTHING, how can nothing explode and make molecules, gas, the moon, the stars, oxygen, hair on people’s skin etc.???

    If I go into my backyard with a glass jar full of “nothing will it explode and as a result I’ll get a whole new universe??

    How is that possible and can an evolutionists REALLY explain that??”

    First of all evolutionist say nothing about how the universe came into existence. Cosmologists do, but thanks to kents warped views on what the different branches of science actually do, I am forced into having to call the branch of science known as cosmology evolution too.

    When scientists talk about evolution they really only mean biological evolution, the six different meanings were made up in Kent’s head. So in answer to your last line, no, evolutionists cannot explain that. Cosmologists on the other hand

    The Big Bang wasn’t an explosion. It was an expansion of space-time. The point at which space-time started to expand is called a singularity because this is where our maths breaks down. This is what cosmologists are working on. Just because we don’t know what this singularity is (YET) does not mean that the Big Bang Theory is wrong. It explains all out current observations very, very well, but it also has some parts that still need a bit of work.

    But asking what exploded (well, what expanded) or what came before the Big Bang is the wrong question. The right question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?
    Actually physicists are now questioning the meaning of the word “nothing. In America, they have built a container, but what they have done is sucked all the atoms out of it to create a completely empty containment area. Since there are not atoms, there are not photons being released by these atoms. Yet you can still see inside the container. So there’s another question. What exactly is “nothing”?

    I don’t think there’s a single physicist or cosmologist that actually thinks there was NOTHING before the universe started to expand. They just haven’t figured out what it was that expanded and why there is something rather than nothing. But I hope I’ve showed you that figuring this out isn’t going to be easy. There are a LOT of things to think about and a LOT of information to bring together.

    The problem I have with creationists/intelligent design is that it says if you don’t know something NOW, you can never know it, you must be wrong etc. It’s all very well saying life is so complex it must have been made by someone, but there is no limit on this complexity. Creation/Intelligent Design assumes you can get to a certain level of understanding and then you have to STOP. And that is simply not true. If you work at something and don’t give up when it becomes complicated, you will work it out. But with more answers, there will always be more questions. We’ve worked out from astronomical observations that the Universe started by expanding from a singularity but with that comes more questions such as “Why is there something rather than nothing? We will find the answer one day. You can be sure of that.

    “If I go into my backyard with a glass jar full of “nothing” will it explode and as a result I’ll get a whole new universe??

    That’s not REALLY how it works. When the universe first started to expand, the matter would’ve been moving in a small space, so it would’ve been moving very fast so it would’ve been really hot. I know after this you’d probably want to ask where did this matter come from, but at this stage the Universe is more energy than matter, but energy and matter are really the same thing. Energy can be converted into matter and vice versa. So in amongst this, hydrogen was created. I won’t go into the details here. At this point in space-time not light would’ve been emitted from anything. Low and behold we have actually found a region in space that is completely black, no stars, no light. The Universe keeps on expanding as energy is converted into matter. But now that the matter has more space to move around in, it can slow down and as a result the Universe gets cooler. The universe still hasn’t reached absolute zero, which is the temperature at which things completely stop. Couple this together with the fact the Universe is still expanding and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and that is strong evidence that everything used to be much, much closer together, even without the maths to back it up.

    Now we know what the hydrogen atom consists of. It’s the simplest element there is. We also know the atomic structure of helium and lithium and beryllium and boron and carbon and all the other elements in the periodic table of elements. We can also recreate the process called nuclear fusion, fusing 2 hydrogen atoms together into a helium atom. The fact that we can do that on Earth and that we know space is a much more ideal environment for this to take place, makes it easy to see that, through nuclear fusion, all you need is hydrogen to create all the other elements out there.

    To add to this, we can also split the atom into its constituent parts, up and down quarks, charm and strange quarks and top and bottom quarks. Then you have the forces and the leptons. This is what particle accelerators do. Because we know fundamentally what all the elements are made up of, we can say that the whole universe I made up of the same chemistry as there is on Earth. It is impossible to have a different set of chemistry elsewhere in the universe. It is impossible that nuclear fusion could’ve happened differently elsewhere in the universe to create a different
    chemistry. The Big Bang Theory even predicted the correct proportion of light nuclei in space. Basically what that means is, given the Big Bang theory is true, we should expect this amount of each of the light nuclei. We can then collect a sample from space and analyse it and see if we’re right. The fact that we could be wrong is what makes it a THEORY. But the fact that we tested it and we were right, means that the most likely explanation for the beginning of the universe is the expansion of space-time. Incidentally, the Big Bang Theory also predicted the temperature of space.

    Still no one has given me an experiment on how you could disprove God.

  50. andrew Ryan June 10, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    Pablo Cruz: “If there is no God, how do you tell right from wrong?”

    That’s a non sequitur. Why does positing a God make any difference to the question? It simply differs it – how do you know whether the God is right or wrong? If he’s right simply by dint of being more powerful then that’s simply a ‘might is right’ argument.

    Try again.