[chasevan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So if you learn a little biology they learn you sharks did not evolve and if you learn a lot of biology you learn sharks evolved? What else will they change if you learn even more biology? Does that not make you suspicious? Does that not show you that you are being deceived by false prophets?

Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

I am amazed you are still unable to see the truth. I will pray that you will see the light of our Savior Jesus Christ at some point in your life.

Its proven that Mars is much larger. I will not get into an argument backed up by superstitious facts. The Bible is not valid enough proof.

[GOD=life]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Its proven that Mars is much larger. I will not get into an argument backed up by superstitious facts. The Bible is not valid enough proof.

So basically, you are saying that YOU decide what constitutes valid or invalid proof.

Your decision making process for proof is this:

• Does the proof invalidate my beliefs? It must be superstituous nonsense!
• Does the proof VALIDATE my beliefs? OF COURSE it's true!

Please explain to us Christians again why you believe that dismissing the Bible as proof is a compelling argument.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Its proven that Mars is much larger. I will not get into an argument backed up by superstitious facts. The Bible is not valid enough proof.

The point I have made in several posts now is that Mars is not 100 times larger than Earth. This is indeed proven by The Holy Bible but even hell bound atheist scientist believe Mars to be smaller than Earth, not bigger.

Even evilpedia agrees with me on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars

Mars has approximately half the radius of Earth. It is less dense than Earth, having about 15% of Earth's volume and 11% of the mass. Its surface area is only slightly less than the total area of Earth's dry land

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Its proven that Mars is much larger. I will not get into an argument backed up by superstitious facts. The Bible is not valid enough proof.

We don't believe Mars to be bigger than earth. as Mars is just a little dot in the sky created by God on Day 4.
Atheist lientists believe Mars to be a planet with a smaller size than earth, which, according to them, explains why Mars doesn't have an atmosphere, its gravitational force is too small to retain an atmosphere (We of course know that Mars doesn't have an atmosphere because it's a little dot of light, not a planet).

[James Hutchins]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I think Mars is smaller than the moon.

I know it is less than 500 miles away, being closer than the sun (the has been established to circle the Earth at approximately 500 miles) and therefore it must be fairly small, probably not much bigger than Rhodie Island.

[ericleb]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Good question. We did not exactly evolve from fish, but from a common ancestor of the fish (e.g., an animal which split off into two or more other species, due to evolution, which involved the development of today's fish and, eventually, us). Sharks, in their original habitat, probably suffered a mutation which allowed Natural Selection to help favor its existence underwater. We, on the other hand, might have experienced a mutation allowing us to store air in an air pocket, thus allowing us to breathe outside of water, and eventually, be able to sustain ourselves outside of water.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/b]

Mars is speculated to have had water a long time ago. Besides; there is no mention in the Bible stating that Mars was involved in the Great Flood, which no scientific evidence backs up anyway.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

No matter the stupidity of a human, our modern medicine allows them to survive. The concept of Natural Selection barely applies to us anymore, because we can cheat this "survival of the fittest" now. That is what differs us from other species.


I don't think you ever thought of killing someone because he / she was unintelligent, either.

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

We have no need for them, therefore, whenever a mutation occurs which begins this sort of thing (such as a bump beginning a ligament,) we normally do not allow them to survive, or reproduce at least. I don't think one would want a three-armed husband / wife, so they would never be able to pass on this three-armed gene.

Remember that evolution only works in gradual steps. You won't see anyone receive a genetic mutation which causes it to receive an entire extra arm.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

[u]We aren't "evolved" to nature our young; this is something which came along with the development of the Limbic part of the brain, which regulates emotion, as well as morality (which, no, we did not receive from religion; unless you truly believe dogs have religion because they do not kill their young)

We also have reasoning now. If one does not want to have a baby, and gets pregnant by mistake, reasoning tells us that a solution is abortion. A fetus is not a human life, and is not born yet, therefore we do not treat it as a baby until it is born.

Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

You are leaving out the fact that organic matter decomposes with the aid of bacteria. Why else do you think an apple rots when we leave it out in the open for several weeks? Same concept applies to human bodies. This matter turns into mineral-filled compost, or dirt.

So, theoretically, we are standing on all of these corpses; just not in a bodily form.


Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?

This question is unanswerable because you are asking us to find the common ancestor of something which does not scientifically (or morally, for that matter) exist. However, I can tell you that the technical true common ancestor would be some sort of bacteria which originated 4 billion years ago. Some think it is a form of RNA cells.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.

Again, this is unanswerable because there is no proof of a snake ever existing. The only proof is your Bible, which is, in a technical sense, unsubstantial in terms of evidence.

Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me

Same answer.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.

I laughed at this. Trees do not go through evolution in the same way that animal cells do. In fact, they don't even go through Natural Selection anymore (at least, not enough to make any sort of difference). This is basic sixth-grader science... and I highly doubt a scientist would have told you this.

If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben

Again, decomposition applies. Organic material is not like the trash you place in your blue garbage bags...

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better
[B]

Because we are not monkeys; we share the same common ancestor. Our brains have grown, unlike theirs (which continues to, but nevertheless is not at the same level as ours).

Why are there still monkey?
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier

Not if the humans grew separately from the monkeys, nor if the human race never wanted to kill unnecessary creatures. You don't see lions attacking everything they see (for lack of a better example ).

Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.

First off, the dodo lived in a small island off the coast of South Africa, near Madagascar. Its population was very slim and does not go across the world like calf. When humans explored the island and probably shared diseases with the dodos, which did not have immunity to these bacteria, it went extinct very quickly.

Secondly, it does not take millions of years to have a species go extinct when you have humans doing the job indirectly. Mass hunting and urbanization / deforestation wipes out many species every year.


Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?
I would say the lack of fossils for these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.

Unanswerable due to lack of evidence of aforementioned species.


Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe the Bible was written by primitive humans in antiquity, who did not know of these previous ancestors? Without the help of a God? As in, perhaps God does not exist? I'm just thinking rationally here.

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC66oXIDGc8

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.

Unanswerable because you are using characters from the Bible to create an argument.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09

Didn't read because the question is useless to answer.

Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09

Again.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09

I'm sorry to say I am not knowledgeable in geology. I suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker, where Richard Dawkins debunks questions related to transitional fossils.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09

[u]"Darwinism" is not a valid concept. No one knows exactly where life came from. They are only theories. All we know is that somewhere in between then and now was water, bacteria, and, according to my first answers, evolution to fish from a common ancestor. Again, we do not come from fish.[u]

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Ugh.

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

[u]Oh my god (pun intended). Possibly one of the stupidest questions I've ever heard.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

Answers are underlined. Hope I've answered in a way you'll understand.

- Eric

[James Dewitt]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Answers are underlined. Hope I've answered in a way you'll understand.

- Eric

Poppycock, you think we evolved from fish and monkeys all in 6,000 years. That is just plain silly. Pick up a Bible, open it and read. The answers are revealed in the FIRST BOOK!

[ericleb]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Poppycock, you think we evolved from fish and monkeys all in 6,000 years. That is just plain silly. Pick up a Bible, open it and read. The answers are revealed in the FIRST BOOK!

In 6,000 years? Are you kidding me? We have TREES older than that (the oldest tree is over 10,000 years old.

Silly Christians.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

In 6,000 years? Are you kidding me? We have TREES older than that (the oldest tree is over 10,000 years old.

Silly Christians.

Dendrochronology is an atheist hoax. The very link you provided tells us that that tree is younger than 6000 years.

Wacky atheist.

[InlovewithGOD]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Oh, so having a third arm would not be an advantage?? If someone had a third arm they would be able two work a third faster and get better jobs. Since you Darwinists claim Panda’s lost and re-grew their thumbs and third arm should be child’s play.



Even if they ate them all assuming an average of 100lbs per person that would be 75 billion tons of human remains in worm guts.

Face, your answers are weak. Worse they hypothetical because you lack direct observation. That is were we Creationists trump you, we have the ultimate direct observer; God. Now turn your lives over to Jesus.

Actually, if we had a 3rd arm, we would work 50% faster, not a third. If we had 3 arms and went down to 2, then we would work 33% slower.

Also- There haven't always been as many people in the world as there are today. Your prediction of the numbers of bodies that need to decompose is ridiculously high. And in the scheme of things and how old the earth is, people decompose to nothing pretty quickly.

[John Scopes]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Actually, if we had a 3rd arm, we would work 50% faster, not a third. If we had 3 arms and went down to 2, then we would work 33% slower.

Also- There haven't always been as many people in the world as there are today. Your prediction of the numbers of bodies that need to decompose is ridiculously high. And in the scheme of things and how old the earth is, people decompose to nothing pretty quickly.

Mathematics is not exactly a strong point among the majority of those here. I recommend you go to their introduction forum and tell them what you are really here for.

I will watch for it, and make notes as that progresses.

[Asha28]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Hello there, I'm a student studying Environmental Science. Hope I can help clear up some misconceptions about what evolution is, how it works and what it means. Please follow the arguments carefully, and if you wish to rebut my logic, please do so with logic and evidence. Please note, the Bible is not factual evidence, as it is only proved true by circular logic (god exists so the bible is true, and if the bible is true then god exists).

[INDENT]
Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

This question deals with adaptation, how a species changes to fit in with it's environment, in this case adaptation of fish to be able to survive out of water. The question is also suggesting that this adaptation is in response to pressure from predators (sharks) in the water, whereas there were few predators on land.
Both sharks (cartilaginous fish) and bony fish were around in the Devonian era (416 - 320 MYA) as has been proven by dating their fossils. Random mutation, very small changes in the genotype of an individual, cause phenotype variation within each species of fish: Some would have larger fins, some smaller, some stronger, some a slightly different colour. If a particular mutation provided an advantage over other individuals, the organism that had that mutation would be more likely to have more offspring (the evolutionary definition of fitness), and the proportion of individuals with this gene in the gene-pool would increase. That's evolution! They mighthave looked a little bit like this...


Why the sharks did not also evolve is explained by the fact that there is no evolutionary pressure for them to do so. There were several million species in the oceans at the time, and very very few of them had this random mutation which started them on the path to living on land. The sharks, who have a highly conserved genotype, would not have evolved onto land as well, because they were already perfectly adapted to life in the oceans, and there were still plenty of species that they could predate upon in the oceans. If sharks had begun a mutation that would help them on land, it would probably also have hindered them in the water (or hindered them generally, in using up energy). Any individual that did this would have a DISadvantage compared to others in its gene-pool, and the mutation would quickly disappear.

In short, it was win-win for the fish, but a pay-off for sharks which really wasn't worth it for them.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?

This has nothing to do with evolution...and doesn't make much sense. Are you trying to claim that flooding on mars proves that god caused a flood on earth?

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

In Evolutionary biology, the fitness of a genotype is the average ratio of population increase, in years or generations. E.g. assuming asexual reproduction, if an individual has 3 offspring who survive to maturity, the ratio is 3:1. The fitness of the genotype is therefore 3/generation.

Saying that some groups of humans are "unsuccessful" & "stupid" is, frankly, quite racist. But for the sake of open debate, I shall respond. The truth is, neither of these things is essential prerequisite to be evolutionarily 'fit', all that matters is how well you reproduce and survive.

Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

As well as having genes which decide what colour eyes we have, what kind of enzymes we have in our digestion, our instincts etc; there are also some genes called HOX genes. These are extremely highly conserved genes which, in simple terms, define how our bodies are put together (two arms, two legs, two eyes). Consider the centipede, it's body is made up of: a head, a tail, and lots of segments in the middle that are very similar. In fact, each section is built using the same piece of DNA, so they would come out the same. The HOX genes however, are the ones which provide the overview to put the head at one end, make 35 or so sections in the middle, and a tail at the end.

Can you see where I'm going here...?

Our own HOX genes, which I remind you have been conserved since the Devonian Era fish, give us a quadrupedal bauplan (body structure), and although our evolution has changed many other features since then, the basic structure has stayed the same. If one of the HOX genes for our arms did replicate, we would probably end up with two sets of collarbones, shoulderblades and arms.

Consider also, what would happen if someone was born with 3 arms. Would it increase their fitness (as defined above)? I would suggest it would give them some really bad medical problems.

Third point: Evolution doesn't always tend towards the 'perfect' organism. It tends towards the local optimal so as to maximize the fitness of the species with respect to environment and ecology. This often gives good results, but perfection is... something else altogether.

Sorry GTG... Back later for more.

Peace be with you.

Asha28

[Nobar King]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Can you see where I'm going here...?

No. That was too complicated and too much to read. Could you just answer the questions that the evolutionists can't answer, preferably in a list using the numbered bullet-points?

[Asha28]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

No. That was too complicated and too much to read. Could you just answer the questions that the evolutionists can't answer, preferably in a list using the numbered bullet-points?

Evolution is a complex idea, and the refutations of it need to be responded to with a water-tight argument. I have done so and have not strayed off-topic. I have responded to the questions individually, and placed them under the questions in quotes.
Please do your best to follow and refute, or stand down. If you need further explaination of things you do not understand in my argument, please be specific and point them out.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

[grey goose]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Evolution is a complex idea, and the refutations of it need to be responded to with a water-tight argument. I have done so and have not strayed off-topic. I have responded to the questions individually, and placed them under the questions in quotes.
Please do your best to follow and refute, or stand down. If you need further explaination of things you do not understand in my argument, please be specific and point them out.

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

The problem, Asha, is that you need to speak American. what is "refutations" mean? and what is "explaination" trying to explain.

oh, and your little quote about blind people.. every Christian knows that blindness is a side effect of homerism.

But, if you must quote the bible (or attempt to), please use the only real bible. I'll fix your quote:

Jeremiah 5:21

Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not

You, my heathen friend, are the only one here who is blind.