Our Websites

10 Questions for Evolutionists

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

  1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
  2. Where did matter come from?
  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
  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 the origin of reproduction?)
  10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

I’ve got many more where this came from, but let’s start with these ten.

Feedback (8/13/2010)

Click here to see our response to the feedback (comments) below.

,

Leave89 Responses to test10 Questions for Evolutionists

  1. Fighting DaGoodFight July 30, 2010 at 3:52 pm #

    Rocky

    “No we haven’t but we have observed change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. Which is the definition of evolution.”

    What you are giving an example of here is ‘micro’ evolution which you already know we creationists believe in. You can call it a different ‘species’ all you want but finches change into other finches, moths turn into different colored moths, lizards get stronger bites but they’re still lizards. Defining ‘kinds’ is in the works by creation scientists even as we speak which may help things but just use your common sense. Do the mosquitoes ever change into fruit flies? No. They’re still mosquitoes. The ‘nylon bacteria’ is certainly an interesting find but when that bacteria is taken away from the nylon they then ‘lose’ their ability to eat it. So, is this a ‘random mutation’ or a ‘programmed mutation’ that we are observing? Very different things. If this isn’t just a normal frameshift mutation then why is it only seen in this particular bacteria? This type of example should be seem all over the place in all kinds of different organisms but that’s not what we observe. Evolution also states that these ‘mutations’ lead to different morphology within an animal as well. Give me one observed example where a mutation of any kind led to different morphology in an organism?

    “Amazing, I can admit when I don’t know something. Yes, there are actual studies going into this, I honestly don’t know if we will be able to figure it out. But study is not stopping just because we don’t know, that is just more of a reason to study. Ignorance encourages study instead of impeding it. What are you suggesting to be done? Throw up our hands and say well God did it and that is that.”

    I’m not asking you to do any of that but I would like you to admit to the fact that evolution is a religion based on faith just like any other. If you truly believe humans got here via the process of evolution then things like ‘cold to warm’ have to just be taken on ‘faith’ by you at this point in the hopes that science will figure it out someday. I can say the same thing about Christianity. How about this. ” I honestly don’t know if we will be able to figure out how to prove God exists. But study is not stopping just because we don’t know, that is just more of a reason to study. Ignorance encourages study instead of impeding it. What are you suggesting to be done? Throw up our hands and say well NATURE did it and that is that.” How is my argument any different than what you’re saying except you think evolution is all ‘science’ and Christianity is all ‘faith’ but my statement holds as much weight as yours does right now.

    “No, you are wrong. We can honestly say we don’t know, but all other lines of evidence point to it happening this way. Again you have to show how it couldn’t have happened.”

    All other lines do NOT point to it happening this way! This is where your evolutionary brainwashing comes into play. You have been told there are ‘mountains and mountains of evidence’ by ‘well respected scientists’ and yet there are HUGE holes that evolution doesn’t have a clue how to validly test for so they completely ignore these questions and only focus on those they know they might be able to answer. When they come up with some hairbrained explanation based on psudo science they have some buddies review it and then publish it as though it’s now law or something. Most of these ‘all other lines’ you speak of are dead ends and simply saying ‘everything leads to evolution’ doesn’t actually make it true. Can I ask what one piece of evidence there is that you believe is a slam dunk case for macro evolution? (Macro as in the creationist definition of one kind to another. Primate to human, fish to land animal, something like that) Just curious on my part.

    BTW – Me showing you ‘ how it couldn’t have happened’ isn’t how this works. You make a claim and then you have to prove it’s actually true. You can’t make a claim and then I have to prove it couldn’t have happened…..that’s not how this works. If that’s the case then I say ‘God did it’ now…..you have to prove to me he didn’t.

    “So many errors, so little time or space. Well a few people are cutting open fossilized bones of dinosaurs (they are rocks not bones). They are similar to mammals in the same way all animals with bones are. Thus why they are all classified under Vertebrata.”

    Comparing bones to current animals or saying ‘these bones look like these bones so these animals must have transitioned from one another’ is psudo science and that whole idea has recently been put into jeopardy.

    “It is more than just the bones that point towards some dinosaurs being endothermic.”

    Once again….there’s no proof to show that cold became warm or endo became exo however you prefer it. If they even somehow showed that some dinosaurs were endothermic how could they ever prove they weren’t endothermic from the beginning? They’d have to go back to ‘assuming’ that they came from an exothermic animal or ancestor of some sort and that ‘assuming’ is all pseudo science.

    “I have and I am guessing far more than you have.”

    Not even close. You’re being brainwashed into only looking at things from a naturalistic worldview and can’t see things any other way. You need to give both sides a try before you claim you’ve looked into things far more than I have. I was an evolutionist coming out of college but when I really started to look at the evidence as it is in front of us right now I started to realize the veil that had been pulled over my eyes in college. Error correcting DNA via evolution? I don’t think so. To even know that something needed to be corrected or that an error had occurred in duplication points straight to an intelligent designer. It can’t be anymore obvious than that. DNA sharing information between strands when the strands were apparently evolved separate from one another? I think not. It would take a pretty illogical individual not to recognize that as impossible via evolution and natural selection. And yet you evolutionists just have ‘faith’ that science will find a naturalistic answer to things like that and go happily along your merry way. I’m not exactly sure what you’re waiting for. Would it help if God just hit you up along side the head with a Kia or something? Science is doing a wonderful job of showing God all around us and you guys just keep going back to nature to explain it all.

    What was that? Tissue and blood cells found in dinosaur bones? But everything we know about tissue and blood cells in todays world via observable and testable evidence tells us those things would NEVER live to be 65 million years old! Well….there’s no WAY this dinosaur could be less than 65 million years old so we must be WAY off base on what we know about tissue and blood cells even though they’re things we can actually test and observe in our world today! (God does a facepalm) What else does he have to do to get your attention? The more science discovers the more it points to a God and NOT to naturalistic ways of origin.

    I’m begging you Rocky to please think it through. I LOVE science because it proves God with every new major discovery we find. It’s obvious you’re not a stupid person so the evidence should be more than obvious to you and yet you run….what are you running from?

  2. die kerze July 30, 2010 at 4:36 pm #

    “It begs the question, if we continue to evolve with no end in sight, is it possible that we transcend the physical world? That would make us what? Pure spirit? If one believes that life came from non-life then is it so difficult to believe that we could become spirit beings during some point of the “mutation of genes”? ”

    IF you are serious i’ll answer your question. No.
    Everything depends on the natural world, you can’t get out.

    “I mean if you shoot a deer it dies. It’s life force goes away.”

    Ummm … no. If you shoot it you cause a massive system failure. If you pull the plug of your toaster you didn’t take away its life-force, you just cut it from the source of its power.
    Guns are not tools for excorcism, they cause the system of your body to fail.

    If your Brain doesn’t work anymore (=dies) the source of electricity in your body (yeah, your body is really powered by electricity) is lost, therefore your muscles ( for example your heart) will stop working.

    “I believe that humans cannot explain the soul or spirit. ”

    Because there is non. The neurons in your brain work or they do not.

  3. Justin Case July 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm #

    Let me try to answer some of the first five questions. I am an astronomer, not biologist.

    #1 Where did the space for the universe come from?
    The space itself is actually expanding with the matter. Thus everyone’s galaxy was in the initial space and is in space today. In a sense the expansion is taking place into the fourth dimension (which is NOT explicitly time, but rather, we live in a four-dimensional space-time). Imagine a balloon being blown up – it is a 2-d surface expanding into the 3rd dimension.
    #2 Where did matter come from?
    Before the expansion started, there was energy, in the form of light. We don’t know where that energy came from – it could have been there forever, or popped into being, or come from a previous collapse. The only thing we know about it is the temperature – which was about a trillion degrees. Someday we might know where it came from. In any case, the matter came from pair production from the very energetic photons.
    #3 Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    That is an extremely interesting question, which we also don’t know the answer to. Our current laws are a subset of the earliest laws – they were ‘frozen out’ as the universe expanded and cooled, but where the general laws came from is not understood. Perhaps someone ‘created’ them, or perhaps they themselves ARE the creator, but that last is only my theory.
    #4 How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    Matter is NOT perfectly organized – it is what it is. Imagine drawing a card from a deck and asking how it became the five of clubs. How could the deck have become so ordered that we picked the five of clubs? Well, it had to be something, and that’s what it was.
    #5 Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    See #4, but there was PLENTY of energy in the universe. As the universe expanded and cooled, its entropy increased enormously; it does not violate 2nd law Thermo to have local pockets (say, Grand Design Spiral galaxies) have a decrease in entropy. Only the entropy of the SYSTEM must remain constant or increase. Beside that, the 2nd law is only one of our CURRENT laws, and not necessarily so simple in the Big Bang.

    Hope this helps. It is only my opinion, but it is how I understand Big Bang Cosmology.

  4. Justin Case July 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm #

    Please let me comment on how science works. Dr. Hovind states at the beginning of this blog that, “The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions.” This is not correct. A test of any theory is whether or observations of the actual system agree with predictions of the theory.

    The Big Bang theory is given some credibility because it predicts that there should be light left over from the beginning, with a characteristic Black Body Temperature of 3K. The actual observed temperature is 2.7K which is pretty good. It is also isotropic (same intensity in all directions) to within 1 part in a million, as predicted.

    The BB theory also predicts that some elements heavier than Hydrogen should have been produced, such as He4, He3, H2, Be6, and Li7. The observed abundances of these (above what could come from stars) agree quite well.

    There are other predictions, but these are the most convincing. A theory of intelligent design would need to also make these predictions, but since the answers are known, it would in addition need to predict some other things that aren’t yet observed – but which can be. Then it would be science.

  5. Corey July 30, 2010 at 5:20 pm #

    Eric,

    I have a question for you, why was the poll changed from “do you believe about evolution” to “do you believe about creation”?

    This implies that are are being dishonest and reflects poorly on other creationists.

    • CSE July 30, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

      We were experimenting with the poll because someone created a bot to place 2 votes per second for the evolutionist perspective; and we were seeing if the bot was knowing which option to select based on word selection. No desire to deceive anyone! Sorry!

  6. mike betts July 30, 2010 at 10:00 pm #

    Questions 1-7 can be thrown out to begin with as they have nothing to do with evolution.

    Q8. OK Don’t know the answer. With what did the first cell reproduce?
    Your answer is?

    Q9. Why do you want to reproduce? Same answer.

    Q10. Mutations occur. Only those that provide an advantage that survives will be maintained in the offspring that survive. Evolution is true.

    Based on your questions ‘Mr ‘ Hovind you obviously have no knowledge of what evolution is about. If you are a doctor it is obviously not in biology.

    Please stay with your delusion of god and leave science to the scientists.

  7. John Sandlin July 30, 2010 at 11:06 pm #

    10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:
    1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
    Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the milkman how many grains of sand are buried under the ice of Antarctica. Ask a big-bang-onist.
    2. Where did matter come from?
    Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the banker how the weather on the moon Titan is today. Ask a big-bang-onist.
    3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the Nascar racer how the endocrine system works. Ask a big-bang-onist.
    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the infant in ICU how to make French Toast. Ask a big-bang-onist.
    5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    Non sequitur. The Theory of Evolution and the creation of matter are separate lines of research. You might as well ask the stuffed toy puppy on my daughters bed why 6:00 AM comes so early. Ask a big-bang-onist.
    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    Almost not a non sequitur … but the theory of evolution doesn’t concern itself with the first life form, but with descent with modification. You might ask an A-biogenesis-onist.
    7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    Almost not a non sequitur … but the theory of evolution doesn’t concern itself with the first life form, but with descent with modification. You might ask an A-biogenesis-onist.
    8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    First understand that sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction are not mutually exclusive, and then note that asexual reproduction of an organism capable of sexual reproduction will create more organisms also so capable so that at any point after that, it is not problematic. It takes little imagination to understand something so simple.
    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 the origin of reproduction?)
    Perhaps it wasn’t a driving force a few billion years ago and most organisms just split when the time was appropriate for them to reproduce. These creatures, plants and things had no nervous systems to “want” to do anything. You’re anthropomorphizing too much. They performed whatever functions were necessary, at any given moment, in response to the appropriate external or internal stimuli. Over time, those species that were more prone to reproduce probably (though it’s no sure thing) gain larger populations than those that were not – one measure of success. When the first cute couples of organisms were reproducing sexually the same dynamic would exist. Organisms more likely to reproduce more often will likely have the larger populations. Because of competition for resources, the populations that are larger will have more surviving offspring. With time, the creatures with the strongest drive to procreate dominate.
    Now, after all the eons, life forms reproduce with great fecundity, often whether they “want to” or not.
    10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
    The interesting thing about your analogy is that by recombining letters, even though all in English, I can create stories for children, stories about wizards, stories about scientists, stories about cowboys, stories about news paper editors, stories about silly high school teachers, stories about, well anything you can imagine. Also, they don’t all have to be stories, they can be poems, songs, novels, novellas, documentaries, encyclopedias, scriptures, instructions, technical manuals, and any category of literature.
    So, with the same few letters, we can have Shakespeare and Chaucer, Saint Paul and Richard Dawkins, and any style of document you can think of, and many more you can’t.
    Also, DNA isn’t really an alphabet, although that is a popular analogy. It’s a framework, and instruction set, and machine, and a machine reader, and a slew of other things as well. DNA is like a book that can read and write itself, repair itself, construct other books, consume and liberate energy, and build its own library in the same process.
    Of your ten questions, seven are not proper questions for an evolutionist, and the remaining three are fairly simple.
    Now, as for the first seven:
    1. There likely has always been something. Of course, the problem with the word always is that it implies some sort of measure of time. Before (another word implying time) the instant that we call the big bang (perhaps it’s really the big oomph) there would be no such thing as time as we know it. We also don’t know is what was, what existed, the instant the big bang began. It isn’t a problem to admit we don’t know something. It also isn’t a problem to admit we might never know that something. That doesn’t stop us from speculating and trying to find out. Scientists that study cosmology have a pretty good idea what the Universe was like only moments after the first instant. But you’ll have to ask a cosmologist for a more detailed description and answer for number 1.
    2. Same answer, essentially, as for number 1. Ask a cosmologist for the details, but likely there has always been a something that once the Universe got rolling eventually became matter.
    3. This is a question of much debate, as far as I know. We might never know. But ask a cosmologist – they are the ones that study this question.
    4. I would not call matter perfectly organized! You will have to state your question differently, I think. Ask a cosmologist, perhaps they’ll understand what you mean and won’t laugh at you for asking.
    5. Perhaps you missed the bit about the early Universe being many millions of degrees – that’s a tremendous amount of energy. It’s still there now, too. There just isn’t nearly as much heat in any one spot.
    6. I don’t know. And that doesn’t bother me. What I am sure of is that what we consider life now and what would have been successful when nothing else lived must be vastly different. There are a great many models proposed, but no one really knows when or where the first life happened. Likely, it had to happen for the “first” time many times before a successful unbroken chain that leads to us began.
    7. Same answer, basically, as for number six. No one knows, no one can sit down and say “November 11th, 3,490,021,005 BCE the first life form sprang forth.” What we do know is it must have because here we are. Those of us that can rightfully be considered evolutionists don’t worry about this question specifically, we worry about how descent with modification works. We let the folks that study abiogenesis worry about that first day of life.
    That wasn’t so hard.

  8. Keith Newlon July 30, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    There was no bot…
    Just a large number of individuals attempting to make their voice heard…
    We are the ones that have been silent for too long.

    • CSE July 30, 2010 at 11:43 pm #

      Actually, we were able to trace back to the source. There is an individual that has attempted to sabotage our polls in the past; and, after some detective work, this bombardment traced back to him (not all bot work, but equally capable of falsifying the results). Nice try, though! :)

  9. Keith Newlon July 30, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    Answers to you and questions back:

    1.Where did the space for the universe come from?
    –>It has always existed.
    ***1. Where did “God” come from?

    2.Where did matter come from?
    –>It has always existed (1st LoT: Matter/Energy cannot be created/destroyed….)
    *****2. Where did God get the matter that the made the universe from?

    3.Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    –>They have always existed.
    *****3.

    4.How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    –>By following the laws of the universe (see #3)
    *****4. By what criteria do you define the organization of the Universe as “perfect?” If it currently perfect, then (since it is constantly changing) it was not orginally so (when “God” created it) and will no longer be so in the future. How do you reconcile this fact?

    5.Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    –>It has always existed as part of the Universe’s Matter/Energy (see#2)
    *****5. Where did “God” get the energy needed to create the universe?

    6.When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    –>When: in the distant past
    –>Where: Earth (and maybe elsewhere)
    –>Why: Better able to survive and replicate itself.
    –>How: Accumulation of useful traits/parts.
    *****6. At which stage during the reproductive process does a living organism gain a soul? Where does it come from? Do other organisms have souls? Why or why not?

    7.When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    –>Replication existed before “life”
    *****7. How, specifically, do you define life. Where do you draw the dividing line?

    8.With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    –>Cells do not reproduce sexually. Organisms do. Early stages were just an exchange of non-specialized cells. Full gamete-centered reproduction developed after.
    *****8. The arches of Roman aquaducts are held together with keystones. Removal of ANY block destroys the arch. How could this structure have been made without the use of magic?

    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 the origin of reproduction?)
    –>Organisms die. The world changes and becomes inhospitable. An “immortal” organism would lose to a recombinant reproductive species in the long run.
    *****9. If “God” is omnipotent, why not create humans with the FULL KNOWLEDGE of TRUTH? This guessing game regarding which, if any, religion is right seems a little strange….

    10.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
    –>Keep what works, throw out what doesn’t and keep tinkering. Use what’s there for new jobs and experiment with new ones.
    *****10. Albert is born to Hindu parents. Lives his whole life as a devout Hindu and helps the oppressed. When Christian missionaries come, he gives them aid and comfort, protecting them from harm, but refuses to convert. Brian is born to Muslim parents. Seeing the oppression of his people, he shoots, bombs, and murders men, women, and children; over 5000 in all. Captured and tried for war crimes, he converts to Christianity two days before his execution. Who goes to heaven, who goes to hell, and do you consider this “just”?

  10. Rijkswaan Vijand July 31, 2010 at 4:21 am #

    But if a complex universe can only be brought about by a more complex creator, this more complex creator could never pop into existence by itself; claiming this creator always existed is nonsence as the same could hold for the complex universe while posing a more parsimonous explanation..
    So if complex things have to be created, is there also a more complex creator that created the creator, and an even more more complex creator that created the more complex creator and so on?

  11. Peter Harrison July 31, 2010 at 4:59 am #

    Jeez, where to start? Firstly, half of the questions aren’t about evolution. They are for cosmologists, not biologists. Secondly, is it not worrying that Dr Dino is wasting time still attacking evolutionary theory instead of spending his available time and resources on backing up his own claims?

    http://realityismyreligion.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/creationists-still-ignoring-the-real-problem/

  12. Steve Comeau July 31, 2010 at 6:02 am #

    So, if it all came down to 1 atom compressed as a singularity somewhere (and somewhere assumes it’s in something), doesn’t physics demand that a force act upon that body at rest? Where’s that force – EXTERNAL to that singularity? What was “outside” that singularity? Just what is the universe expanding into?

  13. Matt Hackert July 31, 2010 at 7:04 am #

    CSE- That’s because web polls are ultimately pointless anyway. Anyone can rally their supporters to skew a poll in whatever direction they like. Hence the point of PZ Myers’ “Pointless Poll” posts on his blog, which, btw, was how I discovered it.
    It’s pretty silly … nay, insular, to post a poll on a creationism-propaganda website asking what the site’s followers believe about creation/evolution. Now if someone like CNN posted a poll, a site with a broader and more representative cross-section of the population posted such a poll, the results still wouldn’t be scientific by any stretch, but perhaps a bit more credible.

  14. Keith Newlon July 31, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    CSE said:
    “Actually, we were able to trace back to the source. There is an individual that has attempted to sabotage our polls in the past; and, after some detective work, this bombardment traced back to him (not all bot work, but equally capable of falsifying the results).”

    Are you referring to PZ Myers?

    Discounting the results of a poll because you don’t get the results you want, even if it is because you feel a group “skewed” the results, is dishonest. If your group is not large enough—well, there is your answer.

    Besides, internet polls are statistically meaningless.
    Truth is not a popularity contest.
    “If 50,000,000 people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” – Anatole France.

  15. martha m July 31, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    It is interesting how the creationists ignore all the detailed answers to the questions and ignore problems with the questions themselves. (Most of the questions didn’t have anything to do with evolution).

    It seems as if they expect science to have a theory of everything or even an answer for everything or the science is defective.

    The difference between the scientists and the religionists primarily is the willingness to not know, to explore, to be willing to change theories if the theory does not work when you learn the facts. This is actually hard to do as humans are wired to want explanations and to attribute causation even when there is no evidence of causation. We are pattern spotters, it helped us survive and act quickly in a brutal world. But our greatest strength is our greatest weakness. Changing our mind in the face of evidence is very difficult to do. There is plenty of science that shows that is the case.

    Exploration gets us farther than digging in our heels.

  16. Doktor Benway July 31, 2010 at 9:36 am #

    John King whined…

    why dont you evolutionists go and prove your belief in evolution and evolve into an intelligent life form. i might believe your theory then, well if i lose all common sense first.

    John… When trying to disparage the intelligence of someone, it helps if you are able to write a cognitive sentence. You are welcome to revel in your stupidity, but don’t expect anything beyond derisive laughter….

  17. Dave D July 31, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    Many of these are interesting questions, so it’s sad that creationists apparently have no interest in learning the answers. They have all been answered many times, in many books, articles, on-line, etc. The list shows a complete, probably willful, lack of knowledge of basic science, and is basically an argument from ignorance and laziness. Being too lazy to even look for an answer doesn’t mean that answer doesn’t exist or isn’t true.

  18. Liza du Preez July 31, 2010 at 10:37 am #

    @Rob S

    1 question for creationists:

    1.) Why does god hate?

    God does not hate!
    God only shows favour to people who OBEY his laws and commands!
    It says -Deu 6:14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you;
    Deu 6:15 (For the LORD thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.
    It is very visible throughout the Bible that each time the people disobeyed, God turned away his face and did not show favour to them.
    This world we live is in distraught because they do not believe!!!
    And the people disobey His commands and laws completely!!!

    And I have to pray for the evolutionists this specific verse Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do…”

    A question for evolutionists:
    1.) Why do you hate God?

  19. Jaap Maat July 31, 2010 at 12:55 pm #

    James Clark typed in July 29th at 3:50 am that Richard Dawkins paused for minutes thinking.
    Actually you have watched a doctored video, which seems to have gotten very popular. The reason Dawkins gives for the initial pause is that from the question he concluded that the interviewing crew had been lying about their background. He had given them entrance to his own house thinking they were genuinely looking for the truth, but from this question you see immediately that they are hard-core anti-evolution (notice how I did not add ‘-ists’ after that).

    The question “Can you cite just ONE case where a mutation caused an increase of genetic information?” is a bit tricky, because the definition of ‘information’ has not been given, and neither for ‘genetic information’. Therefore examples given can be refuted by quickly changing the definition of ‘information’.
    There’s a dude on YouTube actually building a definition for ‘information’ for several hours, making sure the definition in the end proves God.

    You can get a good summary plus links to more information if you look for FAQ CB102 on talkorigins. Recommended reading!

    For the sake of the argument, I’ll give you one example here

    * RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

    Now you will probably react that this was not observed happening. So I’lll ask you to make a clear definition of what you actually want to hear about that would convince you.

  20. Jaap Maat July 31, 2010 at 1:02 pm #

    A sidestep. Whay surprises me is that Hovind seems to see a diversion between either being Christian, or being a scientists.

    And when you are a scientist, you are supposed to defend every branch of it.

    And apparently the theory of evolution is supposed to explain the universe as well.

    Quite strange!

  21. John Grimes July 31, 2010 at 3:24 pm #

    So your response to this alleged sabotage is to change the wording of the question around so it appears that the participants were voting the way you wanted them to?

    You really consider that ethical behavior?

    What were you trying to accomplish with this poll? Did you want to limit it to only your regulars and those who happen to stumble on your site? How do you do that, exactly? And why would you want to?

    Yes, you got Pharyngulated. There’s nothing that stops religious blogs from sending their readers by here to vote as well.

  22. Mike de Fleuriot August 1, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

    1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
    By Space, I have to guess that you mean the “stuff” between matter and between energy. Well, as I understand it, this space is in fact “nothing” as in not one thing existing there. Now with the expansion of the universe, this nothing is able to expand mainly because it consists of no thing.

    2. Where did matter come from?
    The short answer is matter came from the energy that was in the singularity before the expansion of the universe.

    3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    All the laws existed for the same amount of time that the universe has existed, but here is the twist, there was NO time before the expansion of the universe.

    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    By the laws of physics, of course. Or do you have another meaning for perfectly organized?

    5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    It was contained in and by the singularity. But you need to explain further your meaning of organizing, unless you are looking for a designer, then you have to provide evidence for such a creature.

    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    We do not know now, but we are working on the problem. But let me put a counter question to you, How did your Jesus walk on water, do you have a detailed explanation of how he managed to do that ?

    7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    By learn, you seem to be looking for a teacher, well something just happen, and do not require a teacher to provide the learning. Hand on a hot stove, you can learn by putting your hand on it, without a teacher telling you that you will get burnt.

    8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    I would guess something like itself, with or without a genetic drift.

    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 the origin of reproduction?)
    Looking for purpose where there is no purpose. The universe has no purpose, this is a fact, if you dispute this, then you would have to show evidence for such a thing, can you do that ?

    10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
    Not being a genetics person, I have to take a guess, and say that if a mutation occurs in the recombine of a DNA strand, then that can be considered to be new information, whether it is improved or beneficial to the organism, is another thing.
    Remember that mutations happen, and have no purpose, if an advantage can be taken from the mutation, that is “good” and if not, no loss. Having a personal world view that there is a purpose for everything and a guiding hand at the wheel, really clouds a point of view, when in fact, no purpose can be seen in reality.

    It is understandable that the concept of a god looking out for people is a good feeling, but there is no substance to this. The joy of religion, while in the religion, is the same as the joy that a person gets from the use of drugs, it is OK while the drug is in effect, because you do not notice the damage it is doing to the rest of your lifestyle. Only when you stop taking the drug and have a look at the damage that has done, do you get the idea that you should stop taking it.

  23. David Robinson August 1, 2010 at 1:06 am #

    Some very interesting comments, some very pointed and at times heated debate; that’s good. It is good to see passion on both sides. As for the scientific arguments, well, I’m just an ol’ country boy, and nobody would be interested in what I have to say anyway. It all boils down to intellectual honesty though. If I say I believe in evolution, then I trot out all my theories, all my planetary charts, all my science and biology books, white papers, fossils, all my passion, all my religion…. Yes religion. For it takes faith to believe in all that, no matter what argument you wish to place upon it, no matter the justification, proof or lack of, you have to believe… Right, wrong, indifferent or just plain cantankerous, it all involves…faith. A faith born in the intelligence of man, and a trust that his science is correct. Faith like this is a religion, doesn’t matter how you will rebut this, or what spin you seek to lay upon it, you believe, and you hold true to your arguments, you have faith to believe you are right… it is a religion, not science. You just use the “science” as your scriptures to back up what you preach and believe, you seek converts, and damn the heretics that can’t or won’t believe as you do. You show your “superiority” over these unwashed masses with your great diatribes about physics and molecular biology, and look down your nose at the simple ones that choose to believe there is a God, whom you by your very arguments seek to discredit, for to believe in a Creator would force you to change everything you hold dear, would shake your faith in your Sacred Cow, science, and thence, destroy your religion. It is easier to discredit the “uneducated and unenlightened” ones that place their simple faith, hope and trust in an Almighty God. Well, God bless you my friends. If I am wrong about a Creator, one who knew me and formed me in my mother’s womb, if I am wrong about how I came to be, as a result of chance or a result of a divine plan to form me and give me life for such a time as this, if I am wrong, what have I lost? I have chosen to follow a path that leads me to love my fellow man, no matter how he treats me; I have chosen to follow a path that guides me in how I should walk, talk and survive in a world that is increasingly going mad, for despite all the rhetoric, evil flourishes for man has chosen to follow the path of enlightenment, and all his ways, all his science, all his technological advances have done nothing to ease the suffering of our kind as a whole. The only oasis in all the darkness is the religion of the Creator God, the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, and His son Yeshua Ha’Machiach. If I’m wrong, and there is nothing left after this life, then what did I loose? I am a better father, husband, brother now than I was when I pursued man’s religion. I am a chemist, and engineer, a builder of airplanes; a student of man’s knowledge, a fool to his wisdom. All your arguments hinge upon dishonesty – at least admit that it is your religion to believe we evolved from nothing, and will return to nothing; I can respect that, for then we can discuss what lies in between. Maybe we’ll agree upon nothing, it isn’t my job to persuade you, one way or the other. In my world, I try to follow the guidelines a Holy God set down for me, to love Him and my fellow man, to do no harm, to tell no lies, to steal not, to covet not, to live in peace and tell all who will hear of the life I believe awaits for those who trust and believe in a Holy God. If your religion differs from mine, so be it. I only write this because in all your haste to discredit, you miss the big picture – Dr. Hovind is concerned with your soul, not your knowledge. If he could get you for one second to look at the possibility that maybe you are the one who is mistaken, that there is a God, and ignoring this reality could affect your eternal soul, if he can get you to ponder this for just a time, then he has fulfilled his duty to his God, he has warned you. What you do with this is your business, but ours, as believers, is to love you enough to tell you the Truth – Yeshua (Jesus) loves you and wants to give you a new heart. You reject His love at your own peril. If we are wrong, no problem. If we are right, then draw your own conclusion. His questions aren’t designed for you to show off your superior knowledge – or his knowledge either. It is to get you to THINK; what will you do if there is a God? Is your soul (that is if your religion allows you to believe man has a soul) worth anything at all to you? It always amazes me that evolutionists miss this part; we don’t really care about how you think or believe this great planet and it’s citizens all came about; we, as believers, care only about you and your eternal destiny. So put us down as freaks, call us names, show us up by your wisdom; I’m still going to pray for you. If what I believe is so simplistic to you, then why do you bother trying to refute it? If I’m so ignorant, chances are you are not going to change my mind with your long winded dissertations anyway. If you are so smart, yet can’t even entertain the remote possibility that God does indeed exist, then why do you waste your time trying to convince others that your religion is superior to theirs? Be joyful in what you know, trust your faith and your religion. We’ll find out who is right at the end… In the meanwhile, what have I lost by my belief? Not a thing……

  24. Stoove August 1, 2010 at 5:45 am #

    My favourite fallacy here is the people demanding proof of something. By the very nature of science, it is impossible to prove anything with 100% certainty. It’s just not possible, it’s often known as the law of diminishing returns. The more effort you put into proving something 100%, the harder it becomes to gain any headway so you end up making less progress as you head towards the higher percentage.

    You guys also seem not to understand that just because one understands and accepts the theory of evolution by natural selection, one cannot claim to disprove the existence of god. Logically, it’s impossible to prove that something does not exist without being everywhere at once, which is impossible when one obeys the laws of physics. Therefore one cannot possibly outright disprove the existence of god, rather use an alternate theory OR SET OF THEORIES which are more clearly outlined and physically explained under our own constraints. Does it not make sense that we should try to understand why things are the way they are under the constraints those very things exist under, before saying that a proper explanation will probably exist outside of those same constraints?

    Of course here I’m talking about the physical laws as the above-mentioned constraints. Here I believe is a modern version of Occam’s Razor:

    “One should eliminate any explanation of a system by it’s own physical constraints before considering a system outside of said constraints to be probable.”

    This would therefore answer your questions about where did things come from in the beginning: we don’t know yet, but we haven’t yet ruled out it happening under the physical rules that are observable in the Universe, or which can be directly inferred from what we can observe. Therefore we find it highly improbable that god is an explanation.

    Onto the subject of evolution, then: No. We don’t know everything about everything and we never will because that is patently impossible. What we can do and are working on is an understanding of how things have developed. Evolution is an incredibly powerful tool, and we find that if we think about things hard enough and then perform the right operations, we can observe it’s progress. In fact, the very changing of ideas by finding the theories and ideas which fit best what is observed is a kind of evolution in and of itself; albeit through a different medium.

    How did this process start then? Well you see the way it got started was some people got the idea it might be good to try and describe the world more specifically, so they had some ideas about how things worked and then pooled them all. Then they started to try to duplicate (or replicate) their success in other areas of the world… and oh look they had to change their ideas. Otherwise, the ideas would have died. And so the ideas developed, and more contributors entered and gradually by finding which ideas performed best we came out with our modern ideas about the world. And those ideas are still changing. Think of it as a badly phrased and explained but nonetheless accurate metaphor for biological evolution.

    Oh, how did the ideas start? Well random chance played a big role. In fact it played a huge role. In fact random chance caused these people to start thinking that way in the first place. Is that hard to believe?

    So why is it hard to believe that atoms->molecules->RNA->DNA->cells and onwards couldn’t have happened by chance? It’s not like very early Earth wasn’t a perfect place for this to happen what with the “soup” of elements and molecules all reacting with one another.

    And that is as far back as you can POSSIBLY take arguments against evolution and still have some credulity. Asking how the molecules got there is a question for physics which is unrelated to the chemistry and biology of evolution.

    Your original ten questions about evolution are thus reduced to five. Plus the “eleventh” question makes six. Numbers 6, 7 and 8 have rightly been shown to be misunderstandings of current theory, and you should stop attacking strawmen.

    Therefore you have three valid questions about evolution. These questions have been competently answered in as much detail as the current science will allow. Give the research more time to mature and you may well get far more detailed answers.

    If you have any more valid questions, I’m sure someone will be happy to answer them for you in the most elegant way they can. Otherwise, don’t waste your time.

    ~Stoove

  25. Chris Paul August 2, 2010 at 9:15 am #

    I would like to thank those who have explained Evolutionary Theory. It is quite refreshing to get some basic understanding of the concept and the supporting evidence.

    Your debates with the fundamentalists are not in vain!

  26. ben spencer August 2, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    Hello Dr. Dino! Thanks for the opportunity to clear up some of your misconceptions about evolution.

    #1 – That has nothing to with evolution, but…I don’t know, and neither do you… or anyone. I’m just being honest about it. Your question reveals a misunderstanding of the basic concepts. It’s almost a non-question, but I’ll assume you’re referring to the three-dimensional “volume” of our universe. Your question is similar to asking: ‘Where did the surface area of the earth come from?’. The surface area of the earth is a direct result of other physical properties that define the earth. Likewise, the “space” of the universe is intrinsically tied to its other physical properties. To say it “came from” somewhere is non-sensical. Where did your God come from?

    #2 – Again, nothing to do with evolution. Scientists have a pretty good idea of where the physical matter in the universe came from and how it coalesced, although there are many details that have not been answered yet. New advances and insights on this topic are being discovered every day. Just read a physics book. Please.

    #3 – Humans. The laws came from humans. Physical laws are mere definitions that humans use to describe observations that the universe tends to behave in a consistent fashion. Occasionally, things that we thought were unchangeable “Laws” turn out to be wrong! Great Scott!!!

    #4 – You’re using “perfectly” as a subjective term, with your own subjective standards. But to the contrary, matter is in no way, shape, or from “perfectly organized”. Matter as we know it, if it were to continue on in present conditions, will eventually “burn out” and reach maximum entropy, where life as we know it would become unsustainable. “Perfection” simply does not exist in our universe. However, the extent of organization that we do see in matter is a result of the inherent physical properties of the individual atoms that make it up. Thus, your question is similar to asking how a puddle became so “perfectly” shaped to fit into the hole it occupies. Which is, of course, a question a 5-year-old would find silly.

    #5 – This question is really as nonsensical as your first question, and for the same reasons. Read some physics books written by actual scientists. But again I’ll ask: Where did your God’s “energy” come from? Moving on…

    #6 – This is abiogenesis, not evolution but at least we’re getting closer… When? About 3.5 billion years ago. Where? Earth. Why? Well… why not? How? Great question. We’re working on it. The cool thing is, it’s already been proven to be possible! Scientists have succeeded in creating self-replicating molecules that are subject to mutation and natural selection!

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

    #7 – Learn? Really? Life does not “learn” anything, anymore than water “learns” to be wet. The ability to reproduce is part of our definition of life. Without reproduction, there is no life. However, as stated above, reproduction can obviously exist without life. Reproduction (i.e., replication) came before life, by necessity.

    #8 – Cells don’t reproduce sexually. I’ll assume you meant to say “organism”. But there probably was no “first organism” capable of sexual reproduction. There was likely a “first population” of organisms that had developed reproductive methods that we might define as “sexual”. Even today there are species of microbial organisms as well as more complex organisms that shift back and forth between sexual and asexual reproduction (just look those terms up on Wikipedia). Each has it’s advantages and disadvantages. The mistake you’re making here is that evolution isn’t restricted to individuals, it affects populations of individuals, slowly, over time. If you don’t understand the difference between the two, you don’t understand what you’re arguing against.

    #9 – Your question reflects a very old misconception of what evolution is. It’s not about the survival of the individual; it’s all about the survival and proliferation of genes. This is a basic premise of evolution. When looked at from this perspective, having as many offspring as possible makes total and complete sense. Besides that, your question ignores the reality of the benefits of social behavior, in which the burdens of survival are shared among multiple individuals. Have you ever heard of the terms “Strength in numbers” or, “Many hands make the load light”? Consider an ant colony. Could an individual ant survive very long by itself? Probably not. The ants’ offspring are only a “burden” in their larval stage, after they mature they can contribute to the overall health of the colony, increasing the chances for survival. This example applies to countless species, and most certainly to our own.

    #10 – A mutation is not a “recombining of the genetic code”. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. And your analogy fails as well. All life uses the same basic “language” (this is a metaphor, DNA is not a language). However, recombining and modifying English words in existing books will produce new English books. Imagine if thousands of books were in circulation and every person who read one, if they liked the story, were able to change or add one word in the book and then pass several copies of the book on for others to do the same. What would happen over time? The stories that are improved slightly, so that more people like them, would thrive and flourish. The stories that accumulate too many negative and unfavorable changes are discarded. Do this for a few thousand years and what do you think the stories would be like? Would they resemble the originals in any way? Would they be better? Some might. Would they be more complex? Some might. Some books would be so efficient at pleasing their readers that they stay essentially the same. But the majority would eventually become completely different from the originals. In this (admittedly oversimplified) example, the stories are organisms, the stories are DNA, and the people reading them are selection pressures from the environment. What this means is that, in an environment that suddenly turns extremely cold (selection pressure), the animals that have a mutation for longer fur would have a significant survival advantage, and live to pass on their genes. Thus, those genes for longer fur would eventually become saturated in the surviving population. Many such, small, accumulated and “selected” changes, are how mutations in genes can “improve” a population. There are numerous examples of this available to review. For example:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

    Hope this helps, have a grat day!

  27. Charles Haley August 2, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    God said he did it. I can see that He did. That is good enough for me.

  28. Keith Wolter August 2, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    Fighting DaGoodFight

    You are an interesting champion for creationism, as you are more knowledgeable than most about biology and science, and I think your arguments vis a vis “apples and oranges” regarding gravity are mostly sound and even convincing. But I still think you are wrong – I’m just not sure if your really believe what you claim, or you are just being argumentative.

    To state that microevolution is somehow distinct from macroevolution is intellectually dishonest. Evolution, all its believers would agree, is a SLOW process, and big changes obviously take more time than small ones. So to say “horses never give birth to lizards, QED” is either ignorant or dishonest.

    But to your challenge regarding “Give me one observed example where a mutation of any kind led to different morphology in an organism?” – easy; look at your dog. Daschunds and wolfhounds are the same species, no? And would you concede that they had a common ancestor? And yet any person who claimed they have morphology would be a fool. Why are daschunds and wolfhounds different? Do you not concede that they have genetic differences, which in this case were likely selected (at an accelerated rate) by humans instead of nature? And if a few hundred years can turn wolves into daschunds and great danes, chihuahuas and Shar-peis, could not a few hundred million years turn lizards into birds, fish into frogs, etc.?

    Eric Muzzy – I think you betray your real agenda when you argue that evolution, if true, would take God out of the equation. So your problem with evolution is not the overwhelming amount of data to support it, but the threat that data poses to your religious worldview. But this does not in any way mean that the data, or the theory, is wrong, just that you don’t like the implications of it.

    Oh, and in regards to your statement: “if you have ever seen a person die, I mean right then when they are dying, you can see there spirit leave. It is amazing they say.” – not sure who “they” are. But working as a trauma surgeon, I have seen many folks die (too many), and I’ve never seen “there [sic] spirit leave.” Some die peacefully, some not so. But it sounds as if you have no first-hand experience with this, so it is an odd argument to make.

  29. Rocky Salit August 2, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    What you are giving an example of here is ‘micro’ evolution which you already know we creationists believe in.

    That was the definition of evolution. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. It is all in the head of deniers. The same process is what makes up both, mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection.

    You can call it a different ’species’ all you want but finches change into other finches

    There are actual definitions for these things. Species – a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

    When a “finch” (a group of birds in the Passeridae family, with thousands of different species) becomes a different species of finch, they can no longer breed fertile offspring together. Thus they can no longer exchange genetic material, isolating each other and adapting to different selective pressures. Yes, they still are finches, no where in the Theory of Evolution says they wouldn’t be. Just as they still are birds and still are chordates and still are animals.

    moths turn into different colored moths, lizards get stronger bites but they’re still lizards.

    The same thing applies here as it did with the finches.

    Think of it like the US Armed Forces. The Marines are a separate fighting force from the Navy, but are still a part of the Navy. They “evolved” from the Navy but are still the Navy. The Navy is part of the US Armed Forces, just like the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard. They all “evolved” from the militia’s that helped liberate this country. They are still part of the US Armed Forces though. The Marines come from the same root that the Coast Guard comes from (and both are still part of that root), but look completely different.

    Defining ‘kinds’ is in the works by creation scientists even as we speak

    Without a working definition, they may as well say Krepatelions or any other made up word.

    but just use your common sense. Do the mosquitoes ever change into fruit flies? No. They’re still mosquitoes.

    Did anyone say they would change into fruit flies? Your understanding of evolution is flawed.

    Mosiquito is the name for insects in the family Culicidae.

    The ‘nylon bacteria’ is certainly an interesting find but when that bacteria is taken away from the nylon they then ‘lose’ their ability to eat it.

    Thank you for demonstrating natural selection. You take away the selective pressure and it stops being selected for. That is a prediction by the Theory of Evolution, you have just cited proof for evolution.

    So, is this a ‘random mutation’ or a ‘programmed mutation’ that we are observing? Very different things.

    What is “programmed mutation”? How would you identify it from random mutation?

    If this isn’t just a normal frameshift mutation then why is it only seen in this particular bacteria?

    This bacteria is defined by the ability to eat nylon. Plus it was found in a place where the selective pressure created a need to eat a different food source. If we took another group of bacteria and put them in a similar situation, they might also evolve to eat nylon or they might evolve a different survival trick. That is the thing, we cannot predict exactly what will evolve under even the same selective pressures, because of the random part of random mutation. What we can predict, is that they will adapt or die to a change in selective pressures.

    This type of example should be seem all over the place in all kinds of different organisms but that’s not what we observe.

    Tell me exactly what you think we do observe.

    Evolution also states that these ‘mutations’ lead to different morphology within an animal as well. Give me one observed example where a mutation of any kind led to different morphology in an organism?

    Well you already admitted that nylon eating bacteria exist, but I will provide another one for you.

    In 1971, a group of scientists moved 5 pair of lizards from the island of Pod Kopiste to the island of Pod Mrcaru. To quote the article from Science Daily:

    “Striking differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures in the lizard’s digestive tracts were noted after only 36 years, which is an extremely short time scale,” says Duncan Irschick, a professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. “These physical changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure.”

    Eating more plants caused the development of new structures called cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. Cecal valves, which were found in hatchlings, juveniles and adults on Pod Mrcaru, have never been reported for this species, including the source population on Pod Kopiste.

    So there is one example. If you would like to see more just check out the website Talk Origins.

    I’m not asking you to do any of that but I would like you to admit to the fact that evolution is a religion based on faith just like any other.

    Only if I ignore the data could I make that claim. The data is there for anyone to look at. It is even presented in easy to read web pages like the aforementioned Talk Origins.

    If you truly believe humans got here via the process of evolution then things like ‘cold to warm’ have to just be taken on ‘faith’ by you at this point in the hopes that science will figure it out someday.

    No, we may never know exactly how life went from exothermic to endothermic. All other lines of evidence point to a common ancestor though. This is an argument from incredulity, just because we don’t know how it happened doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

    Now if you or anyone else was able to provide evidence that could falsify the Theory of Evolution then we would try and figure out why evolution was wrong, what could possible be going on and why evolution explained the evidence so well (any replacing theory has to explain why the theory it is replacing seemed to fit the data, Einstein had to do this with relativity in comparison with Newtonian physics).

    I can say the same thing about Christianity.

    Christianity, by most definitions, is defined by faith.

    How about this. ” I honestly don’t know if we will be able to figure out how to prove God exists. But study is not stopping just because we don’t know, that is just more of a reason to study. Ignorance encourages study instead of impeding it. What are you suggesting to be done? Throw up our hands and say well NATURE did it and that is that.” How is my argument any different than what you’re saying except you think evolution is all ’science’ and Christianity is all ‘faith’ but my statement holds as much weight as yours does right now.

    Except, I can go out and show you people that are actually doing the studies. No one ever stopped at Nature did it either, while many have stopped at God did it. Nor do most scientists (I can’t speak for all and there is always someone who disagrees) think Nature is a thinking, acting entity. Yes, there are a few scientists and philosophers that are trying to prove God exists (Michael Behe comes to mind), so far they don’t have much to show for it except semantics or an argument from personal incredulity (in Michael Behe’s case).

    All other lines do NOT point to it happening this way! This is where your evolutionary brainwashing comes into play. You have been told there are ‘mountains and mountains of evidence’ by ‘well respected scientists’ and yet there are HUGE holes that evolution doesn’t have a clue how to validly test for so they completely ignore these questions and only focus on those they know they might be able to answer.

    So what are these huge holes?

    When they come up with some hairbrained explanation based on psudo science they have some buddies review it and then publish it as though it’s now law or something. Most of these ‘all other lines’ you speak of are dead ends and simply saying ‘everything leads to evolution’ doesn’t actually make it true.

    Now your anti-science is showing. You definitely don’t understand science or peer review. Peer review is a low hurdle for scientists. All it means is that your paper is based on sound science, in other words there are no glaring mistakes in how you did your experiments, in your calculations, or in your conclusion. This then allows other to try and replicate your experiment(s) and findings. This is where the serious reviews start.

    Quick question, do you remember the name of all the scientists, whose experiments confirmed Newtonian physics, or Albert Einstein, who developed a whole new theory?

    Most of these ‘all other lines’ you speak of are dead ends and simply saying ‘everything leads to evolution’ doesn’t actually make it true.

    Can you give an example?

    Can I ask what one piece of evidence there is that you believe is a slam dunk case for macro evolution? (Macro as in the creationist definition of one kind to another. Primate to human, fish to land animal, something like that) Just curious on my part.

    Humans are Primates, it was a creationist who classified them as such (Carl Linnaeus) .

    You have heard of lungfish, yes? They are a type of fish that can breathe air or oxygen in water. So we have a modern fish that can live on land or in the water.

    If you want actual transitions, then we can go with cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) transitioning from land to water. Starting off with Protugulantum to Chriacus to Pakicetus inachus to Ambulocetus natans to Indocetus ramani to Dorudon to Basilosaurus.

    Or we can go with development of leg structures (which seems to have happened at least twice independently). Eusthenopteron to Panderichthys to Tiktaalik to Acanthostega to Ichthyostega.

    The fossils though are really just icing, if you ask me. The nested hierarchy of genes is the real proof. Take Cytochrome C for example. It is found in plants, animals, and many unicellular organisms. We can trace the changes of Cytochrome C across all plants and animals, placing them in a nested hierarchy based on how similar they are. It will produce one tree of life. Next you can take DNA (in particular ERVs found within DNA) and make a nested tree hierarchy from it. You can do the same for several other proteins found in all living things. Then you compare the trees, remember each tree is made separate from one another without referencing each other. They will line up almost exactly the same across every tree (a some very minute differences between similar species). The reason for this, with the least amount of assumptions (Occam’s razor), is evolution through common descent.

    Comparing bones to current animals or saying ‘these bones look like these bones so these animals must have transitioned from one another’ is psudo science and that whole idea has recently been put into jeopardy.

    Yes, evolution has been dying for 150 years now, it will happen any day now. Relativity is just less than 100 years old (1916). Again your understanding of evolution is flawed.

    What limits do you suggest would keep an animal from transitioning into a new species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, or kingdom? You admit that life changes over time, so what limit would keep these changes from accumulating so much that they are far different from where they started?

    Once again….there’s no proof to show that cold became warm or endo became exo however you prefer it. If they even somehow showed that some dinosaurs were endothermic how could they ever prove they weren’t endothermic from the beginning? They’d have to go back to ‘assuming’ that they came from an exothermic animal or ancestor of some sort and that ‘assuming’ is all pseudo science.

    You have put a lot of eggs into this exo v endo. Even if we never learn how it happened, that does not disprove evolution. Your hang up is thinking that this somehow disproves evolution, which it does not. The only way you can use this to disprove evolution is by showing that it could never happen.

    Not even close. You’re being brainwashed into only looking at things from a naturalistic worldview and can’t see things any other way. You need to give both sides a try before you claim you’ve looked into things far more than I have. I was an evolutionist coming out of college but when I really started to look at the evidence as it is in front of us right now I started to realize the veil that had been pulled over my eyes in college.

    You have no idea of my background and make some rather big assumptions. You have also shown a very flawed understanding of evolution.

    Error correcting DNA via evolution? I don’t think so. To even know that something needed to be corrected or that an error had occurred in duplication points straight to an intelligent designer. It can’t be anymore obvious than that.

    Natural selection does not require intelligence. Error correcting by trial by survival. It is a very inefficient way to correct errors if an intelligence is guiding it. We do better with technology today. We are solving selection pressures through technology faster and with less deaths than evolution (think vaccines). If there is an intelligence guiding evolution then it is of the mind set, throw as much as you can against the wall and see what sticks (species alive today make up about 0.1% of all living species ever).

    DNA sharing information between strands when the strands were apparently evolved separate from one another? I think not. It would take a pretty illogical individual not to recognize that as impossible via evolution and natural selection.

    Universal common ancestor, all DNA started at one point. That is why all life shares DNA overall. A recent study went into a statistical analysis of whether a single universal common ancestor or multiple common ancestors was more viable. It turns out the a single universal common ancestor is the most statistically viable option, easily. Varying multiple ancestors did not even come close to a single ancestor.

    And yet you evolutionists just have ‘faith’ that science will find a naturalistic answer to things like that and go happily along your merry way. I’m not exactly sure what you’re waiting for. Would it help if God just hit you up along side the head with a Kia or something? Science is doing a wonderful job of showing God all around us and you guys just keep going back to nature to explain it all.

    No, science can only find a naturalistic explanation to anything. Science cannot and will not say anything about the supernatural because it is beyond the scope of science. How do you determine whether something supernatural has even occurred? If the source is outside of nature, we have no way of studying or even determining that.

    What was that? Tissue and blood cells found in dinosaur bones? But everything we know about tissue and blood cells in todays world via observable and testable evidence tells us those things would NEVER live to be 65 million years old!

    I assume you are talking about Mary Schweitzer’s find. Which was an amazing discovery. Sorry to tell you but she did not find living proteins, they were dead. Fighting off decay for 65 million years was impressive. They were found in a very well preserved bone (no cracks) and the conditions at death were even more restricting than that of normal fossilization. It had to happen in desert, much like the mummification process. It is under these conditions that the breakdown of proteins can be slowed. Mary Schweitzer has written a paper on it, it is not hard to find.

    You also realize that the proteins come closest to matching that of chickens. Thus another confirmation that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

    Well….there’s no WAY this dinosaur could be less than 65 million years old so we must be WAY off base on what we know about tissue and blood cells even though they’re things we can actually test and observe in our world today!

    Radiometric dating is well understood and very exact. Our ideas on tissue decay was not near as exact. Say you know the exact amount of fuel your car tank can hold and you have a rough idea of how many miles per gallon your car should get (you never have really done any hard measurements especially under extreme conditions). You decide one day to take your car for a drive and find that you have to fill up a lot sooner than you expected. Do you automatically assume that your tank has shrunk? Or do you look at your calculations for mpg or for any flaws in the tank itself? Radiometric dating is as exact as it is going to get under our current understanding. Decay rates for proteins was not and was not taking any special considerations in.

    (God does a facepalm)

    I am impressed that you know the thoughts of God. I would think he would be more concerned with people placing his powers into a narrowly confined box, saying that he can’t use evolution or anything else but what they say.

    What else does he have to do to get your attention?

    I would think an omniscient God would already know this and quite possibly could already have shown himself to me. You are again making assumptions about my person.

    The more science discovers the more it points to a God and NOT to naturalistic ways of origin.

    Again your understanding of science is flawed. Science cannot and will not comment on the supernatural as it cannot be tested. “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.”

    I’m begging you Rocky to please think it through. I LOVE science because it proves God with every new major discovery we find. It’s obvious you’re not a stupid person so the evidence should be more than obvious to you and yet you run….what are you running from?

    You are now making an emotional appeal (logical fallacy) against something you know nothing about (me). You are making some assumptions about my life that you have nothing to base it off of. How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?

  30. Dale Evjen August 2, 2010 at 4:29 pm #

    Isn’t it good to have an ‘all knowing’ person like Sophie Pink to set the record straight on the reality of the human soul?

    A lot of the athiests have it all figured out… “There is no God because I can’t see Him” This proves to me that John 3:3 is most certainly true.

    Eric, you should post 10 of the questions that the Lord asked Job for our athiest friends! I’m sure they’ll have some real good answers (most likely they’ll cry foul… you know using content from the Bible and all).

  31. Bill Cribbs August 3, 2010 at 9:35 am #

    Rocky,

    “Think of it like the US Armed Forces. The Marines are a separate fighting force from the Navy, but are still a part of the Navy. They “evolved” from the Navy but are still the Navy. The Navy is part of the US Armed Forces, just like the Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard. They all “evolved” from the militia’s that helped liberate this country. They are still part of the US Armed Forces though. The Marines come from the same root that the Coast Guard comes from (and both are still part of that root), but look completely different.”

    The only problem with that analogy is that these military changes were by intelligent design.

  32. Bill Cribbs August 3, 2010 at 9:32 am #

    These questions about God are hilarious! The Darwinist geniuses can’t comprehend the fact that there is a God who knows more than they do…is more powerful than they are…is capable of anything…Creator of all things…

    In their attempts at displaying the depths of their “wisdom”, they paint themselves as even greater fools.

    I don’t believe in atheists. It takes more faith to reject the existence of God than to believe in God.

    By the way, why does the conversation HAVE to be about evolution? When Dr. Hovind asked the questions, he didn’t say the questions were about biology or evolution. He simply asked 10 simple questions. They were not so complicated to answer…if you know the truth.

  33. Rocky Salit August 3, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    The only problem with that analogy is that these military changes were by intelligent design.

    Some might argue that depends on your definition of “intelligent”. ;-)

  34. Rocky Salit August 4, 2010 at 7:49 am #

    By the way, why does the conversation HAVE to be about evolution? When Dr. Hovind asked the questions, he didn’t say the questions were about biology or evolution.

    Try reading the title again: Ten Questions for Evolutionists

    Or the opening paragraph: Some well-meaning, but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

    Or the title for the list of questions: 10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

    Is reading comprehension that hard?

  35. Christopher Perkins August 4, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    all these comments from the evolutionists are just making me really sad…for them. my heart breaks for the non believer. like Eric says, what if you are wrong. “Professing to become wise, they became fools” ~ Holy Bible

    Jenni

  36. hynesalan@me.com August 5, 2010 at 3:32 am #

    This man obviously doesn’t have a clue. The first five questions have nothing to do with evolution at all and are really just variants on the question ‘why is there something rather than nothing?’. The last three are just a tacit admission of his own ignorance of the basics of the theory of evolution and genetics. Question seven is just senseless. Of question six, ‘when’ has been answered with a degree of approximation by science, ‘where’ is a little curious – is he looking for a geographic location? ‘How’ is admittedly an interesting question and ‘why’ is not a scientific question at all.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Creationists still ignoring the real problem « Reality Is My Religion - July 31, 2010

    [...] one problem that really annoys me the most about creationism and always has. Here is Hovind’s latest blog entry: 10 QUESTIONS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS: The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to [...]