10 Questions for Evolutionists | Creation Today

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.

,

89 Responses to 10 Questions for Evolutionists

  1. Eric Lloyd July 29, 2010 at 7:39 am #

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

    I have never thought about this before. The evolutionist always has some pseudo scientific answer for most questions, but this question seems unanswerable for the evolutionist, although I would love to see them try.

  2. Chet Lowry July 29, 2010 at 7:50 am #

    Have been asking these questions for a long time and the big banger’s can’t give and answere. Enjoy your website, keep up the good work. Our ministry here in Ogallal, Ne. is The Lowry Observatory and Creation Center. I find we have a great battle to fight.

  3. Michael Fisher July 29, 2010 at 7:59 am #

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

    >Interesting question. But it has nothing to do with evolution

    2. Where did matter come from?

    >Another interesting question. Still has nothing to do with evolution.

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

    >Another fascination physics question. Again, it has nothing to do with evolution.

    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

    >Well, given 3, it is self evidently going to “get ‘perfectly’ organized” according to whatever rules govern it’s behavior, so this isn’t even an interesting question. And it has nothing to do with evolution.

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

    > The more interesting and fundamental question is what *is* energy. Still, it has nothing to do with evolution.

    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

    >Well, the first thing you need is a rigorous definition of “life” that provides a demarcation point between non-living things and living things. Scientists have succeeded in creating self-reproducing molecules that are capable of mutating – evolving – changing their coding and becoming more successful, within their environment. Does that count as alive? If not WHY not?

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

    >Hmm. Seems like a rather confused question. As difficult as life is to define, reproduction seems to be pretty basic to any attempts to define it in the first place so question 7 is really just a repeat of question 6.

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

    >Individual cells don’t have sex and therefore by definition don’t reproduce sexually, although they can exchange genetic matter with other cells.

    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?)

    >That’s a mess of a question, so let me answer that with a thought experiment: On a billions years old and dynamically constantly changing planet (mountains getting uplifted, continents disappearing under oceans and rising again, massive vulcanism from super volcanoes (google supervolcano and yellowstone or deccan traps), continents drifting up to the poles and down again — massive ice ages followed by intense desertification followed by wet tropical rainforests – and occasional massive impacts from asteroids. Over and over.

    Under those conditions what is the likelihood that any indivudal organism can survive? Sooner or later any individual organism is going to get killed by something. It’s going to get drowned or frozen or buried in a massive pyroclastic or lava flow, sucked under a continental plate or even hit by an asteroid.

    A lone individual is simply doomed. Something, sooner or later – and more probably sooner in terms of geological time scales, is going to kill it.

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

    > This questions betrays such a deep misunderstanding of genetics and populations and evolution that it simply isn’t possible to respond to here. Suffice it to say that if you *really*, *truly* want an answer to that question – then somewhere close to where you live is a university with a research library stuffed with everything from introductory texts to current research journals in evolution. You could, if you really care, find out the answer. But like, oh, actually understanding relativity or quantum mechanics it’s going to take some actual effort on your part.

    Not everything is simple.

  4. Stephen Stegall, Jr July 29, 2010 at 8:18 am #

    Dr. Hovind could you post more questions that you have for evolutionist? I know there are more. Its is amazing that many people who have this world view ignore these logical questions.

    I want to thank God for you, and your son’s ministry. He is doing quite well. A chip off the old block, no pun intended. I pray for you, your wife, and son. I also pray for your families, respectively. I just want to say that you ‘ve been such a blessing to ME and my family in as such that I am able to teach my children the truths about our Lord’s word through your videos and books. I can teach the creation period as six literal days and give evidence as to how this could be. I believe you have one of the best ministries out there speaking God’ truth.

    I also want to say I like the new format regarding the website. God bless and have a blessed rest of the day.

    Stephen Stegall Jr.

  5. Jeremey Chinshue July 29, 2010 at 9:05 am #

    lol, I like it when people say origins have nothing to do with evolutionism when it is the back bone of the belief. Silly, silly, silly.

  6. Philip Kingsley Subas July 29, 2010 at 9:22 am #

    i feel that we must not ask questions that requires research. But those questions which have been researched and proves evolution as wrong like the faint young sun paradox. Hear, by evolution i mean the series of changes that brought about the universe. After all evolution is a more general word.

  7. Erik Muzzy July 29, 2010 at 10:17 am #

    Michael Fisher-

    May I say…it is all a matter of belief. If a person believes the “science” of evolution or the beginnings of everything as we know it, then you can explain away any question a creationist can ask.
    We as creation believers can explain our “science” of how everything started using our Bible.
    The issue lies in the fact that a person would rather believe in mans “explanation” of how everything exists, instead of “a book of stories”…
    I for one, think that since not one of us was at the beginning of time to see how it all played out, I would rather believe in a God. It is that simple. If a person wants to believe in man, then that is your choice. I haven’t seen man get anything correct in all of history. We always find out somehow that we were wrong. How many times have you heard “New research proves that blah, blah, blah” or some scientist discovers that “new evidence shows that blah, blah, blah”. How about this one “New theory suggests”, that one is my favorite.
    Don’t believe me? Read any quote you can find from the greatest scientists of all time. You will see many times they correct their research or someone else’s.

    A note on Evolution- If a person believes in something so much that he is willing to fight for it in his own way, maybe he should learn more on the subject of what he believes in so much. For example, Darwin was a confused man. His beliefs were based on white supremacy. Don’t believe me, then read his work. Read his quotes. What did he say before he died?
    The man was a Marxist. Don’t believe me? Read Marxism and compare them both.
    If someone would rather believe Darwin’s “science” who was a racist, then I pray that God teaches him otherwise. Darwin was trying to show that white people were evolved and everyone else was not. He believed black people were close to our “ancestors”. Don’t believe me? Read “Origin of Species”. Specifically, the title and the first two chapters.

    The Bible says that people are “blind to the Truth”. When a person refuses to believe in God, they prove that statement. Explore other possibilities, other “theories”, other “science” before you decide on a conclusion which is so important.

    Last note…what if you are wrong. What if God did create all things? Can you imagine how you will feel when you see that mans wisdom is foolish?

    Just because we can make some “self-mutating cells” doesn’t in any way prove that evolution is actually a legitimate science.
    Give God a chance before you just write Him off. Look at the creation science instead of just explaining away our belief and science.

  8. Michael Fisher July 29, 2010 at 11:13 am #

    “I like it when people say origins have nothing to do with evolutionism when it is the back bone of the belief.”

    Well outside of the fact that evolution isn’t a “belief” any more than relativity or quantum mechanics – two other phenomena not directly visible at the level of ordinary everyday experience. Evolution – like relativity and quantum mechanics is an explanatory/predictive framework for the facts of biology – such as the aptly named Gondwanan distribution of certain species, the fusing of two chromosomes in the human genome that gives us two less chromosomes than a chimpanzee — while still sharing something like 98% of a chimpanzee’s DNA code – and we know exactly which pair of chromosomes fused, why South American monkeys have prehensile tails and African monkeys don’t. Why different sections of the Congo river have such dramatically different fish species. Why there are Redwoods on the North American west coast – and nowhere else in the world. Why there were no mosquitoes in Hawaii until the age of flight. Why there were no mammals in Hawaii until humans got there, along with their stowaway rats.

    And on and on and on.

    All evolutionary biology tries to do is to work out is the process by which all currently existing species came to be from the earliest living things for which we can find evidence – how currently living species came to be distributed the way they are based on what we know if their history and the history of the earth.

    Evolutionary biology cannot answer where the world came from for the simple reason evolutionary biology deals with biology — not particle physics, not relativity, not quantum mechanics, not cosmology. It deals with the living things that it actually has to work with and the history of their life here on earth – that it actually has to work with.

    The origins of the universe is a problem for physicists, not the biologists.

    To work out the evolution and evolutionary principles life followed since it appeared on earth – whatever its ultimate origin – is the project of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology starts with the oldest record of life we have – bacteria – and its findings and principles are independent of how that bacteria got there —- however interesting that question is, it is a different project and one who’s findings don’t effect what came after.

  9. Rocky Salit July 29, 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    So the evolutionists just “assume” that somewhere along the way a cold became a warm without any evidence to back that up. If they can’t prove this then a cell can NOT become a human over billions of years.

    No assumption, but actual study. The evolution of endothermy is ongoing and very interesting area of study. Just because we don’t know how it happened does not mean everything is wrong. The statement I quoted is as ludicrous as saying “You can’t explain exactly how gravity works, so gravity does not exist.” No we cannot explain exactly how gravity works, but there is a lot of study going into it, but that does not mean we have to through out everything we do know about gravity. The same is true for evolution.

    Would you feel it is right for me to throw out the entire Bible because you can’t tell me who the author of Hebrews was?

  10. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    Stephen Stegall, Jr

    Here’s another good one Hovind needs to add to his list of things to ask the evo’s.

    11. What scientific evidence is there that a cold blooded animal turned into a warm blooded animal?

    This is one questions the evolutionists REALLY hate. You can NOT get a cell to eventually evolve into a human if at some point a cold blooded animal didn’t change into a warm blooded animal. Blood doesn’t just ‘warm up’ and then stay warm in future generations.

    If a cold became a warm they would also need scientific evidence that along with a change in blood temp there was also the development of pores, and sweat glands, and ALL of the sweat glands would then have to connect themselves to the central nervous system. After connecting to the central nervous system they would then have to find a way to communicate with the brain in the form of electrical impulses and the brain would then have to ‘evolve’ a way to actually use the sweat glands in the proper way. One wrong signal from the brain and instead of opening up the pores and gradually letting the sweat drip out it may open the pores and SHOOT water out in effect making us all giant sprinklers!

    Do you see all of the problems here? It’s absolutely illogical to think that something could simply ‘evolve’ all of the necessary components via ‘natural selection’. It’s simply NOT what we see in today’s world of actual testable and observable science.

    So the evolutionists just ‘assume’ that somewhere along the way a cold became a warm without any evidence to back that up. If they can’t prove this then a cell can NOT become a human over billions of years. Merriam Webster.com has as one of their definitions for ‘faith’ as the following ” b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof” Gee……I can’t be sure but I think my example is one of a THOUSAND different things evolutionists just have a firm belief in with no actual proof to back things up. (by the way…evolutionists don’t use the word ‘belief’ or ‘believe’. They substitute it with the word ‘assume’ but it’s the same thing.) For them to accept that a cell became a human they must just ‘assume’ (believe) at this point that a cold became a warm. That requires a LOT of ‘faith’ on their part……welcome to the evolutionary religion.

    I’ll post one more for you Stephen.

  11. Rocky Salit July 29, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    “Why is it that I’m crazy for believing that an almighty, beyond-all human-understand God created the universe and everything in it but you’re (the evolutionist) completely sane for believing the trillions of stars, galaxies, gases, elements, time, space, laws, and everything else came from something the size of an atom?…AN ATOM!!!!!! You know…those things we can’t even see with the human eye…an atom. Trillions of stars from an ATOM. You must be kidding me. And somehow they think THEY’RE the logical ones!

    So your entire argument is an argument from incredulity and then an ad hom. Both of these are logical fallacies.

    The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. In other words, that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same. Mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. So all that needs to be present at the point of the singularity is energy, not mass as you claim. As of right now the closest we can get to understanding what was happening at the birth of the universe is one planck time. Again it is something that is being furthered studied.

  12. Rocky Salit July 29, 2010 at 1:52 pm #

    *we have to throw out everything we do know about gravity.

    throw not through

  13. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 1:54 pm #

    Here’s the second argument for you Stephen.

    First off I have to explain a few things to you in the ways of evolutionary definitions. When you talk to an evolutionist one of the most popular ways they argue is to call you names. ‘Stupid’, ‘ignorant’, ‘dumb’, are just some of the words they use to try and make you look bad in the eyes of others. They don’t realize it doesn’t actually strengthen their argument and it certainly doesn’t prove evolution in one way or another. I would just invite you to stay away from using thee words when you converse with them. Take the high road because most of them will not with you and they’ll try to drag you down to their level with this tactic.

    Now…as for definitions. When they say ‘evolution’ they, as a general rule, are NOT talking about the origin of the universe through the evolution of man. They are ONLY talking about how a single cell eventually became everything around us. Their definition of ‘evolution’ does not include the big bang (the bb) or abiogenesis. Abiogenesis (abio) is what they use to try and explain how a cell first got to earth in the first place and/or how life came from non-life. The Big Bang is what they use to describe how the universe and everything in it got here.

    Now I can opine on whether evolution includes all of those things (which, in the big picture it really does if you want to believe in a naturalistic way for everything) but if you want to avoid being called ‘stupid and dumb’ you’ll have to learn to play by a few of their definitions along the way. So…when they say ‘evolution’ they are ONLY talking about how a cell could have evolved into everything around us.

    Now….on to my second argument. Hovind gave you some fantastic arguments concerning the universe and I want to add one more to that list. I gave you a great argument for those that want to talk about ‘evolution’ but if any of them start talking about ‘The Big Bang’ then here’s one I like to ask them about.

    Science used to believe that the universe was eternal up until just a few decades ago when they finally realized the universe was expanding and hence must have had a beginning. (By the way….the Bible said the universe had a beginning 2000+ years ago and it’s only been a few decades since the ‘really smart evolutionist science guys’ figured it out. Chalk another up for God) So now the scientists had quite a conundrum on their hands. How were they going to reconcile the fact that the universe had a beginning and what was that beginning? Enter the ‘singularity’. I won’t go into detail on this but feel free to look it up on the Dr Dino site or Google it but it breaks down to this. The accepted idea by science right now is that the ‘singularity’ was something no larger than an atom. Soooo the obvious question is ‘Where did this atom come from?” but that too obvious a question. My question to evolutionists is this.

    “Why is it that I’m crazy for believing that an almighty, beyond-all human-understand God created the universe and everything in it but you’re (the evolutionist) completely sane for believing the trillions of stars, galaxies, gases, elements, time, space, laws, and everything else came from something the size of an atom?” …….AN ATOM!!!!!! You know…..those things we can’t even see with the human eye……an atom. Trillions of stars from an ATOM. You must be kidding me. And somehow they think THEY’RE the logical ones!

    So, does science show that the universe had a beginning? Sure! I can agree with that but the question is HOW did that beginning happen? An almighty God that revels himself to us everyday or a ‘we’re not sure how it got here in the first place’ ATOM. Good grief. It’s amazing how obvious God makes things sometimes.

    If you guys liked these arguments I have a few other doozies I’d love to see Hovind add to his list.

    Mr Hovind – I hope you don’t mind me taking up so much of your comment space. I’ve been fighting this fight with evolutionists for quite a while now and it all happened after seeing one of your Dad’s videos. I started doing my own homework and looking for the ‘truth’ and the more I studied the more all of the evidence pointed right back to God. People don’t have to take your word, or my word, or anyone’s word for proof of God. If they just do their own homework and look into the evidence as it stands right now they can’t help but discover it all points back to God. Whether they choose to accept it or run from it is their decision but THANK YOU for continuing to do the work you do. God Bless.

  14. Rocky Salit July 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm #

    By the way, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution refute the idea of a creator god or gods as much as Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravity.

  15. Rocky Salit July 29, 2010 at 2:19 pm #

    Germ Theory or Theory of Gravity does.

    *sigh* I type fast and sometimes think something without typing it.

  16. Ed Snipples July 29, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    7 questions for creationists:

    1.How did god make the space for the universe?
    2.How did god make matter?
    3.How did god make the laws of the universe, (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    4.How did god make the matter so organized?
    5.What kind of energy did god use to do all the organizing?
    6.How did god physically create life from non-living matter?
    7.How and why did come up with reproduction?

  17. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 3:36 pm #

    Rocky – Pick up a rock, drop it, it falls. Testable and observable evidence of gravity even though we don’t know all there is to know about gravity. Do we observe cold blooded animals becoming warm and then staying that way? No. Two COMPLETELY different things. Man….I HATE it when you guys try that old “But we don’t know all there is to know about gravity….should we not teach that?” argument. Terrible example on your part. One is testable and observable…the other is not. You even admit yourself that they don’t know how cold became warm but ‘The evolution of endothermy is ongoing and very interesting area of study”. Sooo…..in other words you just have ‘faith’ that one day science will figure it out. Nice religion you have. We should compare religions one of these times.

    “Would you feel it is right for me to throw out the entire Bible because you can’t tell me who the author of Hebrews was?”

    Of course not but once again a terrible example on your part. If the Book of Hebrews was tossed out entirely from the Bible it would still not refute nor dismiss the entire Bible in and by itself. However, if you cannot prove that a cold became a warm then you have a HUGE problem getting a single cell to a human. The entire thing breaks down and for evolutionists to state that evolution is absolutely how a cell became a man is deceitful if science hasn’t shown how a cold became a warm. The Christian equivalent would be if we had zero proof to show that Jesus was a man or that he even ever existed. Christianity completely falls apart if we preach to people that Jesus died for our sins but we had no evidence at all to prove he ever existed.

    What you have is “Well we cut open these bones of dinosaurs and they appear to be similar to modern mammals so we ASSUME they COULD have been warm blooded and then we ASSUME that dinosaurs evolved from reptiles which were cold blooded so we can ASSUME that cold turned to warm even as far back as the dinosaurs but we can no clue how the blood would have warmed and then stayed that way into future generations.” Not quite good enough to prove anything.

    So your opening line to me was “No assumption, but actual study.” The ‘actual study’ you speak of is riddled with assumptions my friend. Just look at the evidence that’s in front of you and take it for what it is. We can “Maybe, Could Have, and Possibly Did” things all day long but that in no way is scientific evidence for something.

    “As of right now the closest we can get to understanding what was happening at the birth of the universe is one planck time. Again it is something that is being furthered studied.”

    Still a religion on your part. If you believe that the universe was not created by a God then you have to have ‘faith’ nature did it at this point because there is no evidence to show what started the whole thing. Just more unsubstantiated assumptions.

    “By the way, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution refute the idea of a creator god or gods as much as Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravity.”

    We both know that’s not true. If science can find a way to show that nature created everything around us then what need is there for a God? There is none at that point and evolutionists can claim the entire Bible is a hoax. Be real here……would you allow me to say that “Intelligent Design doesn’t try to prove there IS a God. It just tries to find alternatives to evolution based on the same scientific methods”. I don’t think so. Please don’t bring your evolutionary double standards into your arguments.

    BTW – I don’t mind if you misspell a word or two here and there. You don’t have to go back and correct them if you don’t want to. I certainly don’t think you’re ‘dumb’ or anything just because of a misspelled word every once in a while. I look at my hands when I type so I’m prone to miss a word or two every once in a while. Nobodees purfect.

  18. Nigel McNaughton July 29, 2010 at 3:08 pm #

    This is built on the classic Hovind ‘Everything is Evolution’ Canard. And the whole thing is quite old.

    1. Nothing to do with Evolution.
    2. Nothing to do with Evolution.
    3. Nothing to do with Evolution.
    4. Nothing to do with Evolution.
    5. Nothing to do with Evolution.
    6. Abiogenesis is a separate field of study than The Theory of Evolution, but quite an active one. There is plenty of research in self organizing & reproducing molecules. Investigate RNA World.
    7. Reproduction is pretty much fundamental to the definition of life. When did Eric learn to breathe? Molecules can already reproduce themselves, see 6.
    8. Who did the first French speaker speak to? The first English speaker? This is the false idea that evolution happens to individuals rather than populations. For a serious answer, probably with a nearby hermaphrodite.
    9. Ignoring that there are animals that eat their young to reduce competition. Again reproduction is built into life, if the drive to reproduce wasn’t part of the package, it would end. It’s really that amazingly simple. If something didn’t reproduce it wouldn’t be around anymore.
    10. Mutations, rearranging letters does create new English/Latin/French/Spanish/Etc words. The reference to Chinese is deliberate dishonesty here. What Eric (or whoever is reposting old Kent Material) is ignoring is that if the different “kinds” had different “languages” in that way, that would be powerful evidence for Creationism. In simple terms mutations provide new words to play with. Duplication events give new pages. Natural selection filters out the harmful nonsense.

    Besides, because I can’t answer some ‘gotcha’ question doesn’t mean ‘God Did it!’.

    But again Eric knows this.

  19. Michael Fisher July 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    “May I say, it is all a matter of belief. ”

    belief
    noun
    1.
    something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
    2.
    confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
    [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief]

    What we’re immediately concerned with here is the second definition. The first deals with common beliefs about matters of peripheral importance where beliefs can and usually are shifted fairly easily when contrary evidence is encountered.

    Evolution is not a “belief” in the second sense because it is a *scientific theory*– theory as in:

    “A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.”
    [The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary
    Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. ]

    The body of knowledge that comprises Evolution is enormous. It has been accumulating since even before the voyages of discovery initiated by Prince Henry the Navigator of Portugal in the 15th century. Over a couple of centuries museums and journals became overloaded with an ever increasing diversity – not to mention sheer volume – of life. Then you add the geology of Hutton, and by the time of Darwin “natural philosophy” was in a quandary.

    Evey “theory” currently proposed by creationists had already been considered – and then rejected – by naturalists before Darwin ever set pen to paper to write his famous book.

    The success of Evolution as a scientific paradigm is the simple result of Evolution being the only theory that accounts for all the accumulated facts about the natural world.

    The criticisms of Creationists against evolution are similar to someone taking a high powered magnifying glass to a 19th century pointillist painting and declaring there’s no picture there, only dots. Creationists focus in on some infinitesimal logic chopping detail that isn’t (yet) completely 110% explained by science – or least not explained without first referring to a rather large amount of background information, or setting standards of inquiry no field of human endeavor could ever meet, which seems a fairly accurate description of your complaint above.

    “I haven’t seen man get anything correct in all of history.”

    Um, so you dispute that if I have a lever, the long arm of which is 10 times longer than the short arm that f x d /= f x d such that 10 units of force over 10 units of distance on the long arm does not apply 100 units of force over 1 unit of distance at the short end? That “man” has somehow gotten that wrong? That an appropriate amount of pressure on a piece of flint does NOT result in the flaking off in a predictable manner of a piece of flint such that it is possible to create axes and arrowheads and spear tips from a piece of flint?

    Are you seriously contending that the reason you’re able to sit a computer and engage in this conversation is just pure luck, that man’s knowledge and skill had nothing to do with creating solid state electronics, computers and the internet?

    I’ll just skip past the obvious ad hominem fallacies leveled at Darwin.

    “What if God did create all things?”

    Whose God? The Muslim’s claim Christians are infidel polytheists. While Christians try and claim they worship the same God as Muslim’s, they disagree about just about everything else, making that claim (especially given the Muslim claims about Christians) doubtful. In any even, if either the Jews or the Muslims are correct, betting on the Christian God would be a very bad bet.

    And vice versa — in John the words attributed to Jesus do make the claim that the only way to God is through Jesus.

    Not to mention that there are other claiments to the God head, some of whom’s described characters make them very, very poor choices to piss off by not properly worshiping *them*.

    And NONE of which addresses the factual problems of biology. Why were there no land animals in New Zealand, only Marsupials in Australia, Marsupials and mammals in South America, Mammals and a couple of marsupials in North America — and no Marsupials anywhere else?

    Why were there no land animals in Hawaii before man arrived? Why no mosquitoes until the advent of flight?

    These and hundreds of thousands of other details of life on earth are explained by evolution — and by nothing else.

    “Look at the creation science . . .”

    There is none. There is no overarching single narrative that explains all the facts of life on earth for creationists. “Creation Scientists” run from the old earther’s like Hugh Ross, to YEC’s, to “Intelligent Design” proponents who assert that a “designer” had to make the first cell – but are comfortable with evolution after that — to those who seem to be saltationists, wanting “the designer” to step in at every character change in a population.

    There is no agreement among creationists — and they refuse to even criticize each other like actual scientists. The earth can’t be both young and old. Either “design” stopped after the first functioning cell and evolution took over — or “the designer’ is constantly tinkering with his toys.

    It can’t ALL be true — yet “creation scientists” are NOT engaged in a project to bring it all together.

    They can’t even explain the distribution of Marsupials or the endemic species of Hawaii.

  20. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 7:58 pm #

    Mike Fisher

    “The body of knowledge that comprises Evolution is enormous.”

    And yet it has no answers to the most rudimentary questions being asked.

    “The criticisms of Creationists against evolution are similar to someone taking a high powered magnifying glass to a 19th century pointillist painting and declaring there’s no picture there, only dots. Creationists focus in on some infinitesimal logic chopping detail that isn’t (yet) completely 110% explained by science or least not explained without first referring to a rather large amount of background information, or setting standards of inquiry no field of human endeavor could ever meet, which seems a fairly accurate description of your complaint above.”

    Dude. Get real here. Asking questions such as “How did the first life form get here on earth? How did the singularity get here? How could everything come from something the size of an atom? How did a cold blooded animal become a warm blooded animal? How did instincts evolve? How did external gestation change to internal gestation and in what animals did that happen? How and why do fish know precisely when and where to drop their sperm/eggs? Where did the electrical pulses come from that power our bodies? How did the brain evolve the ability to control everything in our body? How does DNA know it can swap information between strands and which information to actually switch? How did evolution ‘evolve’ ERROR CORRECTING DNA? These type questions are FAR from being ‘infinitesimal’ or questions requiring ‘a high powered magnifying glass’. These are HUGE holes in the evolution idea. These are literally questions concerning the cornerstone of evolutionary reasoning! How can you not see that!

    You assume that because ‘these bones look like these bones and we found them in the correct layers of the fossil record’ that one animal evolved into another. Well that’s logical. Too bad it’s completely flawed as has been shown by your very own Per Ahlberg and the discovery of 395 million year old tetrapod tracks. So much for the ‘fish to land’ phylogenic tree that’s been passed off in our textbooks as ‘scientific fact’. Guess they’ll have to start all over with that. Seems ‘scientific fact’ equates to ‘hang around a while and we’ll show you what a lie this is eventually’.

    “Um, so you dispute that if I have a lever, the long arm of which is 10 times longer than the short arm that f x d /= f x d such that 10 units of force over 10 units of distance on the long arm does not apply 100 units of force over 1 unit of distance at the short end? That “man” has somehow gotten that wrong? That an appropriate amount of pressure on a piece of flint does NOT result in the flaking off in a predictable manner of a piece of flint such that it is possible to create axes and arrowheads and spear tips from a piece of flint?”

    Nope. Not disputing that but once again here goes another evolutionist trying to compare apples to oranges. The example you give above is one that is testable and observable in todays world. Show me an animal that fertilizes externally ‘evolve’ into an animal that fertilizes internally. Huge difference there my friend. NOT testable and observable in todays world. Remember….similar bones don’t count. It’s a flawed method.

  21. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 8:12 pm #

    Ed

    7 questions for creationists:
    1.How did god make the space for the universe?
    2.How did god make matter?
    3.How did god make the laws of the universe, (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    4.How did god make the matter so organized?
    5.What kind of energy did god use to do all the organizing?
    6.How did god physically create life from non-living matter?
    7.How and why did come up with reproduction?

    Ummmm….because he’s God. He can do anything….he’s GOD.

    Nigel

    “Besides, because I can’t answer some “gotcha” question doesn’t mean “God Did it!”.”

    What Hovind asked were not ‘gotcha’ questions. I’m sooooo tired of hearing evolutionists avoid questions they KNOW they don’t have an answer to by trying to pretend they’re inconsequential or ‘set up’ questions. Those questions are totally legit and deserve an answer. If you can’t answer those questions and yet you believe that everything got here via naturalistic ways then you must have ‘faith’ that those things happened. So here we are….back to the evolutionary religion you guys keep trying to avoid professing to.

  22. Fighting DaGoodFight July 29, 2010 at 8:16 pm #

    Erik

    “The Bible says that people are “blind to the Truth”. When a person refuses to believe in God, they prove that statement. Explore other possibilities, other “theories”, other “science” before you decide on a conclusion which is so important.”

    Amen brother……

  23. Nigel McNaughton July 29, 2010 at 9:53 pm #

    They are ‘gotcha’ questions because no one is claiming to have all the answers.

    Except when Creationists strawman portray others as saying they have all the answers and then play gotcha games like this.

    Oh and ignore the answers that are available (if they looked) and then pretend no one is answering them.

  24. Andrew Parker July 29, 2010 at 10:41 pm #

    1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
    Evolution is, contrary to Mr. Kent Hovind’s Straw man, a subject of biology
    This however is one of physics. Where? All evidence, and theoretical physics work, points to that being an expansion of three of the numerous (quite possibly 11) dimensions.

    2. Where did matter come from?
    More physics, not evolutionary biology.
    Define “Matter.” But a later question suggests you differentiate this from energy. Albert Einstein established that matter is energy in a certain set of states. There is a great deal out there to explain how the energy of the early universe cooled and formed (through the basic interactions of physics) into subatomic particles (string theory has interesting insights of what these might actually be – basically though – ‘strings’ of energy at differing vibrations through multiple dimensions, not just the big three) and from there to form he most basic elements. Hydrogen being the simplest and thus makes up ~99% of known atoms. And beyond that to molecule formation and so on.

    3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
    Yet more non evolutionary physics.
    They all differ. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces and is probably the actions of gravitons. And look up Albert Einstein’s work on it.

    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    Perfectly organized?! Say what?
    Physics, not biology, therefore not evolution.

    5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
    Physics, not biology, therefore not evolution.
    Was there already in the earliest points of the universe’s history known.
    Work on quantum physics suggests that ‘nothing’ (a more deep concept than the naive “common sense’ assumption” is inherently unstable, resulting in an increase in matter and antimatter (by “matter” I include energy.)
    This question is really muddle headed, so a two way discussion would be required before what you really wish to ask could be addressed.

    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
    Abiogenesis. A matter of Chemistry not biology. But at least it’s closer.
    *And no, abiogenesis is not needed for evolution. The first lifeforms could have been created even by magic, and evolution could follow just fine.
    There is a lot of excellent work on this subject though. It’s all chemistry, and the formation of the first self-replicating molecules (not life, just molecules.)

    7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    Erroneous assumption. All evidence suggests the very first reproductions where not done by “life” but pre-life organic molecules.
    And thus again a matter of abiogenesis and chemistry not evolutionary biology.

    8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
    Finally – evolution!
    Interesting question. A lot of work has been (and continues to be) done on this. It is still quite an interesting puzzle. But it is known that sexual reproduction does add to the variation potential and thus the increases in organic diversity. Non-sexual reproduction is rarely more than an exercise in natural cloning.
    If you look around the biosphere you can spot a number of interesting organisms that hint at this change though: insects and plants in particular that represent a “transition” between asexual and sexual reproduction. AS well as the separation of the sexes itself, from natural hermaphrodites to distinct sexes.
    In fact observation of the vast diversity of existent species sheds a great deal of light on evolutionary changes such as this.

    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?)
    Such a confused question. Another that really demands a more expansive education than merely a single response.
    Who says that all plants and animals “want” to reproduce? They just do.
    Anyway, those that ‘chose’ not to? They died (can’t fight against the second law of thermodynamics forever) and left no offspring/descendants to carry on after them. Only those species that had offspring have continued to survive beyond that one generation. To paraphrase a quote I’ve heard: Every single one of your ancestors did not fail to produce viable offspring.

    10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
    Letters huh? Sounds like you are making the mistake of assuming that genetic information fits in with “Shannon Information” it does not, it’s digital and thus differs greatly.
    And mutations area a great deal more varied than simple recombination (for starters: duplication.) Do some research before spouting off.

    Fighting DaGoodFight’s
    11. What scientific evidence is there that a cold blooded animal turned into a warm blooded animal?
    Scientists don’t really use those terms any more, not after learning a great deal more about it (like micro- and macro-evolution the terms have become antiquated and rather naive in nature.)
    This is stil an active area of research, but the short answer is that changes and improvements in heat regulation accumulated. For example the three main factors some just call “warm blooded”; Homeothermy, Tachymetabolism and Endothermy, each present certain advantages to organisms in various habitats and niches, and so advances in each area could have arisen over generations somewhat independently (“somewhat” because each advance probably led to advances in the other areas as well.)

  25. Ivan Ivchenko July 30, 2010 at 12:47 am #

    TO: Michael Fisher July 29th at 7:59 am

    “4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
    >Well, given 3, it is self evidently going to “get perfectly, organized” according to whatever rules govern it’s behavior, so this isn’t even an interesting question. And it has nothing to do with evolution.
    …………
    Not everything is simple.”

    Thank you for your post! I have a question.

    Why “Not everything is simple”?

    Just look! If it is was correct statement, that cosmic evolution is present in nature, the humans must be able to clear understand organization of matter’s form, just because the human mind is the top of evolution. As minimum on the Earth human mind must be able to understand everything from moment of appearance!

    But by experiment we have everyday, and you’re absolutely right, that “Not everything is simple”.

    Next step is or recognize that the Evolution of does not occur in nature, and (or) admit that the human mind is not a vertex of the material world. The next question – whose mind is beyond human understanding and Who understands all?

    Isaiah 46:10 (King James Version) 10 “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

    It is simple to understand Who is He, isn’t it?

    It would be great if Lord Jesus open you understanding, that you might understand the scriptures! See Luke 24:45.

  26. Ivan Ivchenko July 30, 2010 at 12:53 am #

    TO: Dr. Kent Hovind July 29th, 2010 “Ten Questions for Evolutionists”

    Dear Dr. Kent Hovind! Thank you for all your work for Gospel!
    Revelation 2:8-11

  27. James Clark July 30, 2010 at 3:10 am #

    Michael Fisher, are you claiming that evolution can proceed without space, matter, energy, the laws of physics, and no organizational or structural information? If your answer is a serious yes, then you are living in fairy-land and telling stories and pretending that it is science.

    You said “Scientists have succeeded in creating self-reproducing molecules that are capable of mutating…” Did they make these from inorganic materials, or from parts of living organisms? And even if they made them from atoms, did they do it without information? I bet they plagiarized most of the information from some DNA.

    You said “Seems like a rather confused question.” (…how did life learn to reproduce itself?) You might be confused, but the question is not, even if taken to be an extension of the previous question. The point is that it takes considerable information to reproduce. (Study mitosis and meiosis, and you will see.) Without reproduction and several other essential functions, evolution can’t even get started. I designed a very simple computer (computer design is one of my specialties) and wrote the simplest program that could copy itself, and it was a few hundred bits. I simulated (another one of my specialties) this very simple computer running programs of random bits, and only once out of several thousand times it could something as simple as “Add 95746 to memory location 5864.” I calculated the chances of accidently getting a program that could just reproduce itself, and it was like I would need all the molecules on earth to be computers running my experiment for the supposed age of the universe.

    You said “Individual cells don’t have sex..” So after some cells came to exist, how did sex get invented? Again, another chunk of information is needed. Don’t believe the fairy tale that information can come from nowhere — it doesn’t. I spent 43 years of my career applying information theory to technology, and the constant problem was information LOSS. I received 41 patents in that time, and believe me, if I or any one else could invent a way to get more information out of a device than went in, it would be BIG world-wide news, like inventing the atomic bomb.

  28. James Clark July 30, 2010 at 3:50 am #

    Michael Fisher, you really stumbled on question # 10. Your pretending to be smarter that Dr. Hovind and to ‘talk down’ to him, suggesting that if he only got an education he could answer his own question, didn’t go over very well, sounding clearly like you were dodging the question.

    But you are ‘in good company’. In an interview, Richard Dawkins was asked nearly the same question, but more pointed: Can you cite just ONE case where a mutation caused an increase of genetic information? Now, “Darwin’s Bulldog”, as he is called, the leading champion of evolution — who claims that evolution is not just probable, but inevitable — should be expected to have a ready answer to such a fundamental question. But there was a long, embarassingly long, pause, and finally Dawkins mumbled something to the effect that he would need to get back to him about that. Later, when Dawkins had more time to think about it, he tucked a reply to the question at the end of one of his blogs, but the ‘reply’ was a meandering that didn’t really answer the question any better than you did.

  29. Rocky Salit July 30, 2010 at 8:15 am #

    Rocky – Pick up a rock, drop it, it falls. Testable and observable evidence of gravity even though we don’t know all there is to know about gravity. Do we observe cold blooded animals becoming warm and then staying that way? No.

    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. Again you are picking a single issue and claiming that the whole thing is wrong because we don’t know much about it, yet. This is just an argument from incredulity.

    An argument from incredulity is an argument that ignores and does not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or obvious and yet still be false. It is a type of argument from ignorance. That is all you have done here. You have not disproven anything.

    Terrible example on your part. One is testable and observable…the other is not.

    Bald assertion, it is amazing the studies currently going on. We can test and observe the changes in genes within a population that can cause speciation. We have observed this many many many times over. E. coli gaining the ability to digest citrus, bacteria able to digest nylon, mosquitoes living in the London tubes, and yes I know your fall back is to say they are the same thing and “kinds”. Then you have to define “kind”. Where is the cut off?

    You even admit yourself that they don’t know how cold became warm but ‘The evolution of endothermy is ongoing and very interesting area of study”. Sooo…..in other words you just have ‘faith’ that one day science will figure it out. Nice religion you have. We should compare religions one of these times.

    Using faith and religion as an insult, interesting. You making some interesting assumptions about my beliefs too.

    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. You might as well forget about all your amenities. They are all the product of scientific study just like the one you are decrying, yes including testing and observation.

    Of course not but once again a terrible example on your part. If the Book of Hebrews was tossed out entirely from the Bible it would still not refute nor dismiss the entire Bible in and by itself.

    YES, EXACTLY! The same goes with your example. Because we don’t know how it occurred does not mean we have to throw out the entire Theory. Now if it was shown that it could not occur that is a different story all together. So you have to show how it could not occur, not just say well we don’t know so thus it didn’t happen.

    However, if you cannot prove that a cold became a warm then you have a HUGE problem getting a single cell to a human.

    Almost, if you can show that it could not happen, then yes there is a problem. By the way, cold and warm blooded is not used anymore as they are not correct, endothermic is a better term because it is a system that keeps blood warm by various means, some animals use only a few or one of the means and some animals use all of them. So we can already see a bit of the steps it would take.

    The entire thing breaks down and for evolutionists to state that evolution is absolutely how a cell became a man is deceitful if science hasn’t shown how a cold became a warm.

    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.

    The Christian equivalent would be if we had zero proof to show that Jesus was a man or that he even ever existed. Christianity completely falls apart if we preach to people that Jesus died for our sins but we had no evidence at all to prove he ever existed.

    I disagree, it is more akin to my previous example. We could get into a discussion here of exactly how do you know Jesus existed, but I honestly take it on faith that there was an actual Jesus.

    What you have is “Well we cut open these bones of dinosaurs and they appear to be similar to modern mammals so we ASSUME they COULD have been warm blooded and then we ASSUME that dinosaurs evolved from reptiles which were cold blooded so we can ASSUME that cold turned to warm even as far back as the dinosaurs but we can no clue how the blood would have warmed and then stayed that way into future generations.” Not quite good enough to prove anything.

    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. It is more than just the bones that point towards some dinosaurs being endothermic. They have been found in places with colder climates that a exothermic animal could not survive. Some were very fast, that can be determined by measuring the bones in the legs, a higher metabolism is needed to maintain energy, higher metabolism is one of the mechanisms of endothermy. Microscopic analysis of bones shows that some dinosaurs grew at rates closer to that of modern birds and mammals rather than reptiles. Again something that would require a higher metabolism. Giant sauropods like Apatasaurus would require an endothermic circulatory system to raise their head to full height. Of course there are arguments against this too. So again we don’t know, but study is ongoing.

    Dinosaurs are reptiles. Just like cats are mammals, humans are mammals, and frogs are amphibians.

    So your opening line to me was “No assumption, but actual study.” The ‘actual study’ you speak of is riddled with assumptions my friend.

    Again, assumptions can start a point of study, but the facts determine the outcome. Yes, we know that birds are endothermic and modern reptiles are exothermic, so we predict that a change had to occur either in dinosaurs or early birds to endothermic, in that line. Now we study the facts to check against our predictions.

    ust look at the evidence that’s in front of you and take it for what it is.

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

    We can “Maybe, Could Have, and Possibly Did” things all day long but that in no way is scientific evidence for something.

    When a scientist does this, they are admitting that they could be wrong. Is that a hard concept for you? Man is fallible, that is why experiments are repeated over and over and over again. Hypotheses and Theories are repeatedly tested. There is no 100% proof except in mathematics. The internet and computer you are communicating with me on is built on “Maybe, Could Have, and Possibly Did”.

    Still a religion on your part. If you believe that the universe was not created by a God then you have to have ‘faith’ nature did it at this point because there is no evidence to show what started the whole thing. Just more unsubstantiated assumptions.

    Did I state that? Science cannot investigate the supernatural. Do you agree? If all we can ever find out about is the first planck time then that is it. I never said it couldn’t be a God. In fact I mentioned that the Big Bang Theory does not exclude a creator God.

    We both know that’s not true. If science can find a way to show that nature created everything around us then what need is there for a God?

    There is always infinite digress, what caused the Big Bang? If we determine that, then what caused the cause of the Big Bang? There is always room for a first cause God. In fact most people believe that God was the first cause and the laws of nature that God created took over from there.

    There is none at that point and evolutionists can claim the entire Bible is a hoax.

    Uhm no, no one will ever claim the entire Bible is hoax, because we have evidence of things that actually did occur as they were written in the Bible. That means those specific things are not a hoax.

    Be real here……would you allow me to say that “Intelligent Design doesn’t try to prove there IS a God. It just tries to find alternatives to evolution based on the same scientific methods”. I don’t think so. Please don’t bring your evolutionary double standards into your arguments.

    Depends on the description of Intelligent Design, yes initially it was creationists that started Intelligent Design as a new creationism, but I think there are a few ID people now that think of it as something else (Raelians come to mind).

    Now show me how the Theory of Evolution and Big Bang Theory reject the idea of a creator God, because I believe Francis Collins and Ken Miller, among many other Christian and Theist scientists that accept both Theories, would want to talk to you.

  30. Ed Snipples July 30, 2010 at 8:35 am #

    @Fighting DaGoodFight
    “Ummmm…because he’s God. He can do anything. He’s GOD.”

    Okay, but how is it possible that God can do anything?

  31. Sophie Pink July 30, 2010 at 9:19 am #

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

    I have never thought about this before. The evolutionist always has some pseudo scientific answer for most questions, but this question seems unanswerable for the evolutionist, although I would love to see them try.

    ——————————————-

    I don’t need to try. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

    Essentially, all cells reproduced asexually originally. This means that they simply cloned themselves (some errors would occur in the cloning resulting in mutations). Eventually, one of these mutations would have caused the development for the ability of two organisms to reproduce with one another. This had a benefit in natural selection. Those organisms that employed the sexual reproduction had much stronger offspring that were able to adapt to the environment more quickly than those that were still using asexual reproduction.

    This meant that those organisms which employed sexual reproduction would survive whilst the ‘weaker’ organisms would die out since they were only cloning themselves.

  32. Sophie Pink July 30, 2010 at 9:24 am #

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

    A. Irrelevant. It’s like asking how to make cheese, and then demanding to know how cows evolved. This question is pointless.

    2. Where did matter come from?

    A. See previous. Also see: Where did God come from?

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

    A. Again irrelevant to the actual question of evolution. But there are theories that superstring theory might actually hold the key to this.

    4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

    A. Matter isn’t perfectly organised, except it is symmetrical. This makes sense since Newton himself explained that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

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

    A. Irrelevant to evolution.

    6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

    A. Not really relevant to evolution either. However there are several good theories for abiogenesis. Lacking a theory doesn’t automatically make ‘god did it’ a good theory, however.

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

    A. Life had to reproduce in order to be called life. Abiogenesis gives some pretty convincing explanations as to how non-organic matter can recreate itself.

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

    A. Each other. The very first cell would still have been using asexual reproduction AS WELL AS sexual reproduction.

    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?)

    A. Because that is how natural selection works. If a species stopped producing children, it would die out. Those species that had the drive to reproduce survived. Those that didn’t, didn’t.

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

    A. The genetic code is simply binary. Mutations are, more often than not, bad. They result in really bad things happening which will cause the organism not to be able to survive. However, there are occasions when the really small mutations could improve things. For example, a section of DNA copying itself too many times resulting in more light-detecting cells that eventually became the eye.

  33. John King July 30, 2010 at 10:52 am #

    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.

  34. Stuart Mitchell July 30, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    Does anyone who espouses a creationist view point understand that the old testament was written down from an oral history approximately 800 years after the alleged events of the Pentateuch occurred? That there is no actual historical evidence for the life of Moses? Further, do they understand that all creation myths from all religions have for some time been shown to be false and have been replaced by far superior scientific explanations? If you do not trust the technologies that are the underpinning of modern medicine, cell phones, GPS, meteorology, and personal computers then maybe you should not avail yourself of their benefits. The weak and credulous questions posed by this website do not deserve a direct response.

  35. Rob S July 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Quote: (Eric Muzzy) “We always find out somehow that we were wrong. How many times have you heard “New research proves that blah, blah, blah” or some scientist discovers that “new evidence shows that blah, blah, blah”. How about this one “New theory suggests”, that one is my favorite.
    Don’t believe me? Read any quote you can find from the greatest scientists of all time. You will see many times they correct their research or someone else’s. ”

    CHANGING YOUR MIND IS THE BEST EVIDENCE THAT YOU STILL HAVE ONE.
    Creationists do not seem capable of changing their minds. Everything is known for it is written in a special book. There is no free will, no reason to explore, no quest for real knowledge. If the universe were a creationist, we would not exist.

  36. Erik Muzzy July 30, 2010 at 11:24 am #

    Great comments James Clark.

    I have always seen it as a belief issue and I don’t want to sound redundant, but either you believe evolution theory or creationism. It is that simple! One can debate all one wants but it still comes down to what you will believe. We are all entitled by God to decide what we will believe. Free will. Both sides of the issues have their points but ultimately one must decide which one makes sense for them. I chose God. I would rather say “God made everything” then to say everything is random. Just makes more sense to me.
    The issue goes deeper than most people think. God or not God is the real question. If you would rather believe that your life has no meaning then that is your prerogative. I choose to believe my life has purpose. Evolution does take the stance that you have no purpose but to replicate by mutation with no end in sight. Wow, really? No end? Then what happens when we eventually reach a state where the physical is so “evolved”? Then what? Oh yeah, thats right a HUGE meteor resets everything…

    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”?

    I have a question for evolution theory…How does evolution explain the soul or life-force or whatever one wants to call it?

    If you take away the soul the organism can’t survive. I am not talking about plant life or any other lower form of life. I mean if you shoot a deer it dies. It’s life force goes away. If a person dies, there is no soul left in the body. If you do not have a soul then you are dead. I know this is simple but it needs to be explained in this manner. Not to mention that, 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.
    Why is it that evolution has never, at least as far as I have learned, can’t address this issue?

    This is why I believe in creationism. I believe that humans cannot explain the soul or spirit. So I believe in God. Simple as that.

    Michael Fisher- it seems like everyone is ganging up on you a little…you bring good points of discussion. You obviously have thought about your stand greatly. I appreciate your viewpoints. I hope you stay in the debate…

  37. bcreason July 30, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    I find it unfathomable that modern people that use cell phones, GPS and computers still deny science. If God came to earth in blaze of glory all would be believers. Yet here you are with the evidence of science all around you and you deny it’s validity. The evidence of the big bang is the same evidence that led to the creation of cell phones, GPS and computers. Atom, quantum and relativistic theory are used in those three devices. For there to be no big bang then those theories must be wrong and cell phones, GPS and computers would not work. You can not separate the big bang from the cell phone. It’s all the same theories and the same math. To deny one is to deny the other.

    As for no one was there to see the big bang so it must be false. That is the absolutely stupidest argument. That is the argument of the desperate. Like a child with cookie crumbs on his face telling his mother, “Did you see me take the cookie?”
    Imagine you are a juror. The defendant was found alone in a locked room with the victim. He had a smoking gun in his hand when the neighbor burst in 2 seconds after hearing the gunshot.
    So by creationist logic you must acquit the defendant because no one was there to actually see the murder. He must be innocent since no one was there to witness the murder.
    We have evidence of origins. We don’t have to have been there.

  38. Sophie Pink July 30, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    No belief is required to understand evolution, except the belief that things will always do what they are observed to do. There isn’t anything unproven with evolution.

  39. Rocky Salit July 30, 2010 at 12:50 pm #

    Erik,

    I have always seen it as a belief issue and I don’t want to sound redundant, but either you believe evolution theory or creationism. It is that simple!

    Actually, the facts speak for themselves and all lines of study point to evolution.

    One can debate all one wants but it still comes down to what you will believe. We are all entitled by God to decide what we will believe. Free will. Both sides of the issues have their points but ultimately one must decide which one makes sense for them. I chose God. I would rather say “God made everything” then to say everything is random. Just makes more sense to me.

    Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution does not say everything is random. Evolution is guided by Natural Selection. Thus it is a guided process and not random chance. Evolution does not exclude God either. Natural Selection is guided by environment, that God could easily control. I assume you believe that God is in control of the weather. If so, then God has an active hand in Natural Selection and thus shapes life through the process of evolution.

    The issue goes deeper than most people think. God or not God is the real question.

    Then your debate is not about Creation or Evolution but theism and atheism. Evolution does not equal atheism, ask Francis Collins and Ken Miller.

    If you would rather believe that your life has no meaning then that is your prerogative. I choose to believe my life has purpose.

    I have yet to see anywhere here where someone stated that their life has no purpose. Every atheist, I know, will state that their life has purpose of their own making.

    Evolution does take the stance that you have no purpose but to replicate by mutation with no end in sight.

    Evolution is not a philosophy and thus makes no such statement over why humans are here. It only looks at the facts and determines how the diversity of life came about on Earth through natural processes. It cannot and does not make any statement about supernatural or philosophical questions. Again I think your understanding of Evolution is flawed and incomplete.

    Then what happens when we eventually reach a state where the physical is so “evolved”? Then what? Oh yeah, thats right a HUGE meteor resets everything

    I am not sure what you are getting at here. What do you mean by “the physical is so ‘evolved'”? There is no end goal in evolution, it is just about surviving to pass on one’s genes. Again it seems your understanding of evolution is incomplete.

    Where has anyone claimed that a “HUGE meteor” will reset everything? If you are referring to one of the major extinction events that have occurred in Earth history, specifically the one that most people recognize as killing the dinosaurs, that is determined by studying what is called the K-T boundary. It is a line found throughout the world containing high levels of iridium. Iridium is a very very rare metal. Before the line we find dinosaur fossils. After the line we do not. Of course a meteor strike is only one of the hypotheses for the existence of K-T boundary.

    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”?

    To be honest, we don’t know. Right now it looks like we are eliminating a lot of the factors for Natural Selection to take shape on humans, not all but a lot of them. So it seems that Humans have, in a way, stopped evolving. Technology is moving much faster then Evolution can or could. We develop vaccines instead of letting a bunch of people die while only the people with natural immunities live. We have learned ways to keep a higher rate of children alive then in the past, so that some genes that would not be selected for in the past survive to pass on. This is a good thing overall. It means there are more people and more experiences to share with one another and the technology makes us more adaptable to change in the future.

    I have a question for evolution theory, How does evolution explain the soul or life-force or whatever one wants to call it?

    Science cannot take any kind of stance on the supernatural. There is no way to measure a soul or life-force. There is no way to know if it even exists.

    If you take away the soul the organism can’t survive. I am not talking about plant life or any other lower form of life. I mean if you shoot a deer it dies. It’s life force goes away. If a person dies, there is no soul left in the body. If you do not have a soul then you are dead.

    Death is caused by your body’s functions ceasing. The same is true for every living thing, even so called “lower” forms of life. Honestly there is no such thing as a lower form of life, life is equal and has been evolving for the same amount of time.

    Is there anyway to measure this life force or spirit? If you know of way you would be the first person to do that and could win a Nobel Prize. Dr. Duncan McDougall once tried an experiment to weigh people as they were dying in order to weigh their soul. He claimed to be able to do it and said the soul weighed about 3/4 of an ounce. No one has been able to replicate his findings. The problem being Dr. McDougall did not take into consideration the loss of sweat by evaporation due to the sudden increase in body temperature when one stops breathing (the cool air from outside the body helps regulate your body temp). This was done in the early 1900’s.

    I know this is simple but it needs to be explained in this manner. Not to mention that, 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.

    Have you had any experience with this?

    Why is it that evolution has never, at least as far as I have learned, can’t address this issue?

    As I explained earlier, it is a supernatural claim and outside the realm of scientific endeavor. That does not mean it does not exist.

    This is why I believe in creationism. I believe that humans cannot explain the soul or spirit. So I believe in God. Simple as that.

    Again, science has never claimed that it could explain something that cannot be measured in a physical universe. This does not exclude the idea of a spirit/soul/life force or God existing, it is just out of the realm of study.

    Now if you do make a testable claim be prepared for it to be studied.

  40. Sophie Pink July 30, 2010 at 11:51 am #

    To explain the soul/life-force. It doesn’t exist. Never has done, and never will do. You have been duped into thinking something that is not true, with zero evidence for it. You are your brain, and your brain is you. You can see that clearly enough when someone has a stroke, or if someone suffers brain-damage. They are not the same person that they were before.

  41. Stuart Mitchell July 30, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    Erik Muzzy:

    Belief is a technical term in philosophy. You can say “I believe Paris is in France” or “I believe that Humpback whales live in the Pacific ocean” even though you have never seen the a whale or been to Paris and you would be right. You are trusting the sources of information that you are basing you beliefs on. To believe that a soul leaves a body when you die is an assertion that has no basis in fact or evidence. I have seen many people die and had several die in my arms and there was no obvious soul leaving their body, just a final breath or death rattle and they were gone. It is the height of wish thinking and an infantile need to overcome death that has lead most of the world to adopt a religious belief that guarantees life after death if you follow a specific dogma or creed. Life is what you make of it here and now so don’t waste your time worrying about a nonexistent afterlife.

  42. Stuart Mitchell July 30, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    Erik Muzzy:

    Free Will:
    Do any of the 5 babies who die of hunger each minute of every hour of every day exert free will?
    Do the children who contract HIV or Malaria through their parents or lack of mosquito netting exert free will?
    Did the victims of a tsunami, hurricane, or a tornado exert free will?

  43. Rob S July 30, 2010 at 12:21 pm #

    1 question for creationists:

    1.) Why does god hate?

  44. Phil Schuster July 30, 2010 at 12:49 pm #

    The first 6 questions have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection, and no scientist pretends to know the answers to these 6 questions. Only creationists pretend to know the answer – which of course is: “God did it”.

    The question about how sexual reproduction started is not hard to address. The first sex cells were identical unicellular organisms fusing with eachother. It’s called isogamy and it can be observed in many algae today. The evolution of sexual differentiation can be seen in extant organisms as we see examples of difference in size of flagellated sex cells (anisogamy), slight differences in shape and size (heterogamy) and finally a small flagellated gamete fertilizing a larger immoblie gamete (oogamy). Many plants, like algae, mosses & ferns, show an alternation between spore forming asexual and gamete forming sexual stages. The origins and evolution of sex is not hard to explain.

  45. Phil Schuster July 30, 2010 at 12:51 pm #

    Now I have some questions for creationists:
    1. Where did God come from?
    2. Why does God exist?
    3. Why couldn’t God have used evolution to accomplish this?
    4. How do you know which God created the universe?
    5. Why isn’t there any empirical evidence for God?
    6. Why did it take 6 days for God to create everything?
    7. Why was God so tired out that He had to take a day of rest?
    8. Did Adam & Eve have belly buttons?
    9. Why aren’t all men missing a rib?
    10. Why did God make it so we can choke on our food?

  46. Phil Schuster July 30, 2010 at 12:57 pm #

    John King wrote:
    “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.”

    The evidence is all written down in thousands of books and periodicals. Now it is your responsibility to read the literature for yourself. Of course that may entail getting a degree in biology, but it’s only fair for someone to educate themselves in a scientific discipline before critiquing well accepted theories.

  47. Rob S July 30, 2010 at 1:00 pm #

    I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection going on here. Natural selection is not some divine power that is guiding evolution. It is the term we use to explain why one iteration of a gene survives and another does not. Natural selection is NOT an intelligence that picks and chooses what species survive. One species survives because it is better suited for its environment, not because natural selection likes it better. Natural selection is a TERM used to describe this phenomena.
    I realize this may be difficult for creationists to understand because, in their belief, there IS a divine power guiding life. If you really want an understanding of evolution theory, you must think outside of your box. Similarly, if an evolutionist truly wants to understand creationism, he/she needs to be inside that box.
    In the end, I think that is what this is all about… being inside the religion box or outside of it. I understand wanting to remain inside, it is safe in there. But real knowledge is not found in there. The scary and beautiful truths about the universe are not in there. Everything you “know” is in there though, and to abandon that by leaving the box may feel like death. Understanding and believing evolution does not imply that your life has no meaning. It simply means that you get to CHOOSE what your life means. What a wonderful way to live!

    Peace

  48. bcreason July 30, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    I always hear the argument that the universe is random or made by God. Since we can all see the universe is not random therefore it must be made by God.

    This is a false dichotomy. There is a third answer. The universe is not random and not made by God.

    If you let go of a pebble it does not fly about in a random direction. It goes in the direction that gravity is pulling it. We can even use math to predict how much time it takes to fall, how fast it will be going when it hits the ground, and how much energy it will hit the ground with. There was nothing random about it and yet God was not involved.

    Gravity is the predominate force in the universe. It pulls the matter of the universe together and sorts it in predictable ways. It makes planets with the heavy stuff in the middle and the lighter things like water and air on top.

    Not Random and Not God.

  49. lamanga2004@hotmail.com July 30, 2010 at 1:32 pm #

    I truly despair for the future of this planet if this entire website is representative of the level of intelligence of a large proportion of one of the most powerful countries on the planet.

    Moreover, this particular page, 10 Questions For Evolutionists, is a prime example of why I will never let anyone of a religious persuasion go anywhere near my kids in an educational setting.

    Here’s a question for you guys on the god side of the argument.

    Who, or what, created god?

    (By ‘god’ I mean your god, not the muslim one, or any of the Viking ones, or Mesopatamian ones, etc. to name but a few.)

    Here’s another one for you.

    Do you find it slightly coincidental that your religious icons and festivals happen to have remarkable similarities with those of religions that are now considered ‘extinct’?

    Examples include winter solstice, vernal equinox, virgin birth, attendant magi, resurrection, etc. to name but a few.

    If you were completely honest with yourself, and there have to be some doubters amongst you, you would come to the conclusion that your god is simply an artefact of one of the more recent versions of the creation story that has been a part of human thinking for tens of thousands of years. Of course, it goes without saying that science (or should I say, a better understanding of our place in the natural world) came along and kicked these prehistoric ideas into touch – for most educated people anyway.

    Sat here, in the UK, drinking a beer, and absolutely dumbfounded at the levels of credulity displayed here. Unbelievable.

  50. Matt Hackert July 30, 2010 at 2:50 pm #

    Dr. Hovind,
    Although I know from the outset that were my efforts intended to persuade you to change your beliefs, this would be a futile one from the outset. Your misrepresentation of science and the scientific method, either intentional or as a result of genuine ignorance, is beyond my ability to remedy. Instead, I hope that some of your readers, with a more open mind, might consider what I have to say, if only to realize that there is perhaps a different perspective out in the world, less rigid and inflexible than your own. And perhaps it might lead them to undertake their own, independent investigation of the *real* facts. (Facts are also something you grossly misrepresent.) With that, here are ten answers to your challenge to “evolutionists,” i.e. those who believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection best explains biological diversity and the fossil record as we see it today.

    1. This question is not even biologically related. Evolution does not proport to be a ‘Theory of Everything’ like string theory. Second, in terms of cosmological theory, it is nonsensical to ask, as you seem to imply that there is somewhere outside the universe that can be defined. This is a mathematical notion, one I am ill-equipped to describe, as I am not well versed in the language of mathematics. More broadly, however, although theories do attempt to provide explanations for observations, and good theories can make predictions within certain limitations, one’s ability to find questions a theory cannot answer does not in any way denegrate its validity. Rather, it simply opens new avenues of investigation which hopefully bring us greater knowledge and understanding when we do find answers. The best answer I can provide to number one would be to refer to an expert in inflationary theory to explain how space is created as the universe expands.

    2. Again, many of the previous points can be reiterated here. Specifically, one could say that matter condensed out of the energy from the big bang, according to Einstein’s famous equation e=mc^2. That energy originated in a singularity of infinite density. Where the singularity came from, and what caused it to expand, creating the universe as we see it today is another frontier in science which investigators continue to look for answers. As before, however, a theoretical physicist who specializes in cosmology would be far more coherent, and could provide much greater detail than I am able.

    3. More fodder for a physicist… yet again. My own understanding is that this is a question still under investigation. Once more — the question hardly refutes any of the knowledge in which scientists do have a great deal of confidence. It simply highlights an area of ongoing research. If we had answers to all the questions, all our scientists would be standing in line for unemployment checks.

    4. Define ‘perfectly organized.’ Cosmologists and astrophysicists have a good understanding of why the macrosocopic structure of matter in the universe is as it is. The large-scale structure of the universe was dictated almost at the instant of the big bang. Minute quantum fluctuations in the primordial energy of the universe were instantaneously magnified by inflation, resulting in large swaths of higher, and lower density areas. Matter coallesced out of those higher-density regions, eventually leading to stellar and galactic formation. Gravity then did the rest.

    5. See my answer to number two. This questions is another that almost makes no sense at all. There’s an implication, although subtle, of intentionality behind it. Again, as to the origin of the energy of the universe… it is the same question as where did all the matter come from, since Einstein showed that matter *is* energy. It’s just that when the universe first began, it was *all* energy. Now, about 13.7 billion years later, there’s a thin film of it that has condensed into what we are familiar with as matter.

    Well…halfway through the questions, and yet not one that a *biological* theory will ever address. Perhaps this piece should have been entitled ‘Ten Questions for Physicists.’ I wonder … does Dr. Hovind call an electrician to fix his leaky faucet, then chide the poor repairman when, with a great deal of confusion, he tells the good doctor that he can’t fix his faucet? “Muah-ha-ha-ha!” exclaims Dr. Hovind. “Your theories of electromagnetism are worthless!”

    6. *Finally!* A biologically-relevant question, though still not quite the same as evolution. Evolutionary theory explains life once it has already begun. Everything leading up to biogenesis kind of falls more into the realms of biochemistry and geology, but as I’m not a scientist of any stripe, I’ll do my best to explain what we think happened, and of course, refer you to more expert opinion. We know through observation that comets and other astronomical debris bare organic mmolecules. Our models of planetary formation suggest that early in a star’s life, planets coallesce from a disk of such dust and debris. Even after planets have formed, there is a great deal of this debris leftover that continues to bombard the young planets, thus providing a rich suupply of organic building blocks on planets like Earth. We also know through observation that many simple organic molecules such as would have been found on the early Earth will self-assemble under certain conditions. I don’t know how much specific detail we know about this, but it is hardly a stretch to imagine that given enough time, more and more complex structures would form this way. Some of those structures will have a property making them suitable for self-replication. In some sense, one could define this self-replication as the most primitive form of life. Not very elegant or fancy, but functional, at least to a degree. Once self-replicable structures exist, and provided there are enough building blocks nearby from which they are constructed, they will multiply. Morgan Freeman’s Universe which airs on the Science Channel also provided some speculation as to how an early cell membrane may have come about. As to when this occurred, our best estimates put it somewhere between 3.7 and 4 billion years ago. That covers when and how…where is a bit of an odd question. I would imagine that overall, most of early planet Earth looked the same from a relatively macroscopic perspective. Wherever water was available. I don’t think these process would have taken place on dry land, or even less likely, in some lake of lava. Why? This question is absurd. Because the circumstances allowed for it. To imply any other purpose is to anthropomorphise the question. There is no willful or intelligent agent at work to provide a purpose. Purpose is a human invention.

    7. On April 17, 3,921,362,819 BCE at 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, the first archebacterium enrolled in a sex-ed course at its local community college, at coordinates 7 degrees, 12’51” N by 27 degrees 18’25” West. The bacterium ended up earning a BS in cellular fision, because it felt it had beeen wasting its life up to that point. What a ridiculous question.

    8. As I noted, I’m not a biologist, so if someone reading this *is* one and is aware of such a species, please let me know, but I’m pretty sure that the first sexually reproducing species was multicellular. I myself am unfamiliar with the evolution of sexual reproduction, and on the surface, I can see how it looks like a real paradox, but I would have to imagine that the literature abounds with papers on the topic. Sorry *I* don’t have an answer. And even if *we* as a society don’t yet have an answer, you have hardly proved anything. The fact remains that there *are* sexually reproducing and asexual species extant today.

    9. Definitely more relevant to evolution, although still rather misguided. This question again assumes a whole lot more intelligence than any of the first organisms could have posessed. Reproduction, regardless of the method, happens because it *can.* Grow a bacterial colony to in a petri dish, and it will continue to reproduce as long as there is nutrient available, not until it feels that it has reached a point where any future generations will tax the available resources. It has no knowledge of the concepts of economics or ecology. Those are things we invented. Where feedback mechanisms have evolved in more complex organisms, the positive benefit is that more offspring means a greater chance that *some* will survive to continue to perpetuate the species. There is no consideration of individual survival. The underlying flaw in these last series of questions is the misguided notion that any of these things were purposefully planned. Although things like eating and reproduction cause pleasure doesn’t mean organisms didn’t eat or have sex prior to their evolution. But, any species for whom some members began to derive pleasure from feeding and reproducing were likely to do both more frequently, and thus produce a greater number of offspring. It all leads back to numbers, and whether a change in a species causes an increase, a decrease, or no change at all in their reproductive output.

    10. Here again – several misconceptions or misrepresentations, depending on whether Dr. Hovind is genuinely ignorant or deliberately dishonest. It would take a while to correct all of his mistakes. Consider this, however, anyone who has done an anagram knows that letters in one word can be rearranged to form another word. This can be scaled up to sentences and paragraphs too, or even books, if you have centuries to rearrange all the letters. It is also intuitive that most rearrangements of a given set of letters will not form new words, but only a jumble of letters, nevertheless, a finite, nonzero number of recombinations will. I can also imagine that someone with sufficient vocabulary in two or more languages sharing a common alphabet could rearrange letters from one text to make sensible words in another language. In Dr. Hovind’s challenge of crossing linguistic barriers of languages who do not share a common alphabet, there are two points. One, this is too far removed from being at all analogous to molecular genetics, because all life on Earth shares the same set of “letters” (nitrogenous bases) in its alphabet. Second, if we represent the Chinese phonems in Roman letters, then my previous point applies–someone with sufficient knowledge of English and Chinese could rearrange English letters to form Chinese words. Getting back to the molecular biology… again, there are three broad types of mutation: harmful, beneficial, and neither. Two of these categories will be passed on. The harmful ones may also get passed on, if they do not inhibit the organism from procreating, but they may get passed on with less frequency. In addition, let’s look closer at how genes can mutate. The genetic code contained along the length of a chromosome encodes the sequence of amino acids in a protein. Each amino acid is representated by one or more genetic “words”, each containing three “letters” or nitrogenous bases. Since some amino acids can be encoded by more than one genetic word, you can see how some mutations would cause no net effect, either harmful or beneficial. Other changes do result in more drastic effects. Most of the harmful ones never even result in viable offspring, so they never get passed on. On occasion though, some change actually endows its offspring with a slight advantage, either in attracting a mate, finding food, making use of novel foods…the possibilities are endless. The end result is that that organism has a greater likelyhood of reproducing and/or reproduces more viable offspring. And because its offspring contain [at least some] of the parent’s genetic material, that mutation is likely to gradually increase over time within the population.

    In conclusion, I’m sure it’s nothing for Dr. Hovind to spue forth similar questions as these. What scientists try to do is to come up with interesting questions; questions that, in investigating their answers, lead us to new understanding. It’s also easy for Dr. Hovind to point to a few lines of text first scrawled by people thousands of years ago without the benefit of the knowledge we have today, in their best attempt to explain what they observed of how the world worked. If we simply stick with these explanations, and nobody asks interesting questions, what then? How do we make any progress?