[OpiatedAussieTroll]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

what? i copy and pasted his questions, then under them answered them. that's why one line in every paragraph has a - in it.
i.e.
Question: Generic Religious Crap
- Answer: Logic, Facts, Proof.

so yes, i can copy and paste, well done, so can most people with an I.Q higher than 2. What's your point and what does a search engine have to do with anything?

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

so yes, i can copy and paste, well done, so can most people with an I.Q higher than 2. What's your point and what does a search engine have to do with anything?

The people with a slightly higher IQ than you, say over 50, just post hyperlinks. Hyperlinks have been invented in 1965 by Ted Nelson so you are a "little" behind on these things.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Many of your answeres to the questions of Brother Bobby-Joe have been rebuked already. Therefore, I will answer only the answer I haven't seen before here. For the rest, I gladly refer to earlier conversations in this thread.

- well for one thing, there haven't been any floods on mars. BUT, hypothetically if there ever was one, i'd say it's for the same reason we have rain and floods on earth. Atmospheric cycles causing rain. duh.

1. There has been a flood on Mars. Large scale alluvial fan structures testify of this.
2. So you admit that the Flood on Earth happened as well?

- do we need a third arm for survival? no. So without demand, there is no supply. duh

Again, you fail to understand what evolution really teaches. It says that the fittest organisms survive. While people with two arms can easily survive and reproduce, people with three arms can do that better, as they would have an advantage in fights with other people, and better utilization of all kinds of tools. Therefore, according to evolution, people with three arms would have evolved by now.

Some people aren't ready for a baby. some people dont want one. some people cant afford one. it's human nature.

You completely fail to answer the question. The question is not why people want to murder their offspring, or whether or not it is a moral thing to do. The fact is that people who do not abort their children will have more children, and therefore more successful genes. If evolution were true, this desire would have evolved away long ago. The question is, why didn't that happen?

Human's are the only animal that reproduce for pleasure

Friend, have you never heard of bonobos?

- well angels and demons aren't real, so i dont need to. prove to me the existence of an angel, bring me a living angel and i'll tell you what it descended from.

Okay, friend, there you go:

- because tree's die, you pifflewit. they dont just grow forever and ever. they die after a certain amount of time and no amount of evolutionary change in height is going to change that.

Why not? Isn't aging, according to the religion of evolution, a biological process of telomeres shortening? Why didn't those trees evolve telomeres that grew back again?

- they DIDN'T evolve to cope with their surroundings. Dodo birds went extinct because of an ice age, they weren't equipped to handle tundra conditions and the ice age occured so quickly they couldn't adapt to it, and hence died out QUICKLY. also, humans are killing species's and habitats accounting for QUICK extinction. Now riddle me this, why didn't "god" better equip dodo birds to survive an ice age? i mean, he's god, he must've known the ice age was coming, he MADE it happen didn't he?

I think there are few evilutionists as ignorant as you.

1. Dodos lived on Mauritius, they have never been at the tundra. Get an education, you retard.
2. So you admit that enormous timespans are not necessary for species to go extinct?
3. God's ways are incomprehensible. We can't possibly know why He didn't create a better dodo.

- Spiders catch wasps in their webs. Then paralyse them. Then suck them dry and kill them. Many spiders have developed a kind of silk that's almost invisible, they build an obvious web, and an finer web infront of it. The wasp goes for the kill, but gets caught in the second web. Spider beats wasp, process of evoltion. where did god come in again?

Nonsense. Look up the biology of the tarantula hawk before making yourself look even more ridiculous.

- a 100 trillion cell amoeba is only just barely visible under the most powerful microscopes in the world. what in the name of piffle makes you think we'd be able to see a 2 cell amoeba?! it's there, you just cant see it. Kind of like the wind. Are you going to debate the existance of the wind next too?

We are seeing one-celled amoebas as well under the microscope. Why shouldn't we be able to see two celled ones? You are exceptionally stupid. Does the nurse know that you are not in your cell?

- that's just an outrageously piffleing stupid question. life didn't come from mud, life came from the amoeba's LIVING in the mud. 2nd, mud is dirt and water. dirt is dead skin, stray particles, eroded rock, all kinds of shit that you find all over the world. therefore there is still dirt. Water is piffleing everywhere, it's 73% of the world. When dirt and water meet, they make mud, that's why there is mud.

Ever heartd of abiogenesis? That is something in which evilutionists believe, and it says that life evolved from non-life (mud). If life did that, then there would have been an advantage to cause this non-life to evolve into life. So, if evolution weren't a ridiculous conspiracy to infuse teenagers with satanism, but were true, all mud would have evolved into life by now.

- "thought" is the reaction of chemicals. therefore chemicals by themselves cannot think. They dont have a nervous system, a control centre, nothing. They're just an element, an atom doing what it's designed to do, like a computer chip. Why can't computer's think for themselves? because they aren't programmed to. Why dont chemicals think? because, by NEED of nature and process of evolution, they aren't designed to.

This only proves that evolution is stupid. all these chemicals do not think, why does the entirety of them think? That makes no sense. If the thought process of an atom is equal to 0, then it will remain 0 no matter how many atoms you add, as no one has a thought process higher than 0.

because it just piffleing does, some things are one way and others are another, it's how the world works. duh

That's just an elaborate way of saying: "I can't answer this." If you can't answer it, then why do you claim you can?

Clothes aren't necessary for survival.

Go and tell the eskimoes that, friend!

wow, i believe i just answered all your questions, logically, factually and with minimal curse words. I win. Atheists 1 Theists 0. Check piffleing Mate.

Wow, I believe I just debunked all your answers, save for the ones I already debunked earlier in this thread. Additionally, I used no curse words at all, and only called you stupid when you said stupid things. Checkmate, atheist. I hope you've learned something from this.

[davidramirez]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

first of all im christian but i found your questions really, mmm how to say it, not proving anything.
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?

they say it takes milliones of years, same reason why monkeys still monkeys

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?[/

what does mars have to do with earth? if here it rains water does not fall in mars

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

bigger and better wapons

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

need one? for simply and neccesary task i dont think so

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?

animals kills babys too specially if they are not from them

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?

WE bury our death that way, no way to know how they did it in the past

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?

i believe en angels and demos but they dont so is not a real quiestion for them

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.

same answer above

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

this is myth

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.
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

but this tree doesnt get al sunlight so theres no reason for others to grow more

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

some humans act like them but also evolution means CHANGE

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

same reason as sharks

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.

dodo bird was killed by human

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.

they found dragon fossils, i dont know what is a satyr and unicorn is another myth

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.

there are some things that the bible doesnt tell us, like why de devil and gabriel were fighting for moses body. (dont search this answer my aunt tried and God gave her a lesson for sneaking in his secrets)

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.

this is how they reproduce is like if womens started to not getting pregnant by males

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.

for evolutioners cain is a myth

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

we dont have real proof of this

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

unicorns are myth

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

this is really a very good quiestion

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

why does a lion dont have stripes? because is a lion

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

because gasoline is not a living thing

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

do you think ur hair is what? besides clothes wasnt mean to be, they camed when adan and eve felt shame because of their sin

ALL WE HAVE IS FAITH altough nice try

[Wide-Open]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

unicorns are myth

Whoah Nelly!

Are you rejecting Job 39? Psalm 29:6?

Are you dismissing:

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Didn't you say you were a Christian?

[Levi Jones]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Wall of of incoherent text. What is this?

Get over here. The introduction forum and give us a proper, er, introduction.

What Church you attend. Your favorite scripture. What pie you bake best for your husband.

[Winter Seraph]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t 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?

Just because a couple of species of fish evolved to live on land doesn't mean that sharks are suddenly going to learn how to survive on land. The only reason sharks would feel the evolutionary pressure to evolve into land animals would be if all their food sources migrated to land.



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?[/

These two things really have nothing to do with each other and though one planet may have had an enormous flood does not mean another has.
I believe Billy-Joe said "The evidence is clear that The Flood was so big it covered the earth and mars." There is no way this could be possible. If God created a flood so mighty that it hit Earth and also somehow bridged the 54.6 million km gap between Earth and Mars it still wouldn't be plausible. The water would have to penetrate both planets atmosphere and be going faster than the speed of light which is only around 299,792 kilometers per second. At such a high speed any water would be vaporized.



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

Humans have an unusually strong sense of empathy for all different creatures, especially other humans, as such they often help those they feel pity for. This could result in the succession of stupid humans. Also whether someone is stupid or foolish is quite subjective and depends on a persons view point. Thus what you might view as stupid could potentially be a better traits that they pass on.



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

My first answer is that our backbone and musculature do not in any way support having an extra arm, let alone how are brain and nervous system would have to change to handle another limb. It may be possible, in however many years, that we do get another arm but this would only happen if it proved to be an advantageous trait. At the moment this is not so. It would also probably be more of a hassle for humans to evolve extra limbs than the gain we would get from them.

As a note about this question and the last, human evolution and theories, such as survival of the fittest, work only to an extent with the way society is at the moment. Humanity has many great tools to prolong the life of people and, in some countries, their is always care for people that are injured no matter how poor or foolish they are. These things all lessen the effects of theories such as survival of the fittest.


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?

Bobby-Joe answers this question interestingly when he says "No, the ability to slaughter our children without hesitation because it is the logical, not instinctive, thing to do argues against a biological origin of man. Only a benevolent supreme being could gift humanity with the ruthlessness to callously dispatch it’s own young because reason tells it to. Nature tells man to preserve their kids, God tells man to butcher them."

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-705/Animals-kill-young.htm

The above site shows a lot of evidence of other animals killing their young for various reasons. Though nature tells animals to nurture their young it also seems to tell them to kill the young.
I think the reason people often feel little remorse over abortions is that, if caught early enough, the fetus doesn't even look human and the mother feels little connection to it. Also because of mankind's level of higher thinking we have the ability to rationalize our actions, whether this rationalization is the result of a supreme being or evolution is a different matter.



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?
Simply put not everyone was buried in a nice little coffin but often in mass burial mounds or sites. The black plague resulted in so many deaths that bodies were just thrown in piles to be burned or left to rot. Other times of mass death such as wars and plagues would have similar consequences. As has been stated over and over bodies also decompose and are eaten by worms and scavengers.



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?

As there is no physical proof of angels or demons, such as bones, fossils or bits of DNA, there can be no way to prove their existence scientifically, thus scientist would have no way to accurately place them.



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.

As no other animals have gained the ability to communicate with humans it is highly unlikely that a serpent had the ability to communicate with Eve in the first place. This casts doubt onto the bible, though I know you won't heed that. Perhaps the serpent was possessed by the devil though I don't believe this is explicitly stated. From an evolutionary stand point it is possible for a species to lose certain traits not only gain them, it's all a matter of what is advantageous. If the ability to communicate with humans never helped snakes then perhaps those with a lesser ability of speech were deemed better mates. It is also impossible to tell if an animal has the ability to communicate through fossils so their is no way to look at ancestral snakes and see if they were able to communicate.



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

There is no empirical proof that the Loch Ness Monster exists and though there has been much searching no creature has been found. You are correct in assuming that it would be hard for a species to sustain itself in its conditions, shedding even more discrepancy on the idea of the Loch Ness Monster existing. As it is unlikely the creature existed in the fist place it really has little to do with evolution.



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.

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


It is possible that if a tree were to live unhindered for an uncountable amount of time it could grow to amazing heights but there are problems with this argument. First is that trees rarely live unhindered. They have to deal with parasites, other plants, natural disasters, humans and often don't live long enough to reach their full potential. It is also possible that thinner amounts of carbon dioxide, from reaching higher and higher, would stunt of growth. The root systems of these trees would also have to be enormous to support the weight and the magnified winds found when one goes higher into the atmosphere would likely topple any trees with dense foliage. It is altogether unlikely that trees would grow to reach but so high unless there were hundreds of thousands of years of uninterrupted evolution. Also this evolution would have to be advantageous, if it really isn't an advantage to grow but so tall then trees will reach a certain point where they will stop growing.




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
The latest discoveries actually point to a common ancestor between humans and apes so it is not so much that we evolved directly from apes but that apes and humans evolved from one common ancestor. Humans also have a more developed sense of rationality. Babies are a good example because they are much more instinctual. If we let them I bet babies would throw fecal matter around all the time but we don't let them. Society also restrains us. It is not considered acceptable for humans to do certain things because of our society but animals have different social structures with different rules.



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

The fact that monkeys exist shows a few things. One, that when humans were still evolving they must not have been capable of totally crushing other species, such as monkeys. Two, that humans have the rationality to not destroy everything. We see many organizations around that try to help all sorts of endangered animals and such. Humans have caused many animals to go extinct, though, with over hunting and habitat loss. Examples are the Bali tiger and the Passenger Pigeon. Also, just because an animal is stronger doesn't mean it will destroy others, it is a matter of an animal finding its niche in the ecosystem. Even if species A is stronger and better than species B both can survive if they each have a specific niche job they must perform in the environment.



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.

That is incorrect, it is possible for a species to take a very long time to die out but that doesn't mean species of animals cannot be wiped out in a couple years. As I stated earlier humans have caused many animals to become extinct or endangered. If animals from different continents mix it can also cause extinction or endangerment as the new animal may have no natural predators in the new location. It is also possible for mass extinctions to occur through great natural disasters such as ice ages or giant meteors.



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.
The lack of fossils also shows a lack of scientific proof for their existence. There is no way a scientific theory can take into account something that has so little hard evidence.



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.

Well, if we go with the idea that the Earth is only around 6,500 years old then there's no way Neanderthals, and such, could have existed. Lets say the Earth is as old as scientist say then perhaps God in his wisdom realized that the people of the time wouldn't understand such things and thus with held the information. It is also possible that, as humans often make mistakes, for some reason it was never written into the bible. The evidence of human ancestors that are older than the Earth, as according to the Bible, is one of the strong pieces of evidence against the Bible but you accept biblical fact over scientific so I cannot make much of a case 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.

It's quite possible that in hundreds of thousands of years spiders will have a biological defense mechanism of some kind against wasps but as the prey is changing so is the predator, though slightly behind the prey, making it difficult for the prey to just get a defense and then be forever rid of its predator. Evolution and survival of the fittest all take extremely long periods of time too, when it comes to genetic mutations and physical adaptations. If a different behavior could save the spider it would take a much shorter span of time for the species of spiders to adapt and defend themselves, but once again the predator will also adapt.



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.

I have pondered this myself and my guess is that, though, inbreeding does cause genetic problems, if Adam and Eve were as vaguely prolific as it states in the bible after a little while there will be such a genetic mixing and such a randomization of gene combination that any early genetic problems would slowly disappear. Also, if certain children had severe genetic problems they might not have been married off or allowed to procreate.



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

While it is quite an impressive display of genealogical recording, whether true or false, there is no evidence, such as DNA testing, that can be done to prove all of these connections. As such it is possible that, according to the Bible, he was related directly back to Adam and Eve.



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

The first problem is that scientists don't have any proof that unicorns existed, so while we can speculate at the evolutionary role of what is commonly believe to be a mythical creature there is no way to have any proof. The horn could have been used for protection. Perhaps females were attracted to male unicorns with longer horns and the male unicorns fought each other over the female, much like deer.



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

This is an excellent site that shows simply and clearly fossils of tiny multi-celled bacteria. It goes on to say, though, that such fossils are very rare.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

There are also fossils of things called Small Shelly Fauna which are only a few millimeters long and can be the whole skeletons of organisms or snail like mollusks. SSF, as they're abbreviated, can also be parts of larger organisms that are ancestors of such things as sponges, mollusks or arthropods.



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

"Most amino acids, often called 'the building blocks of life', can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Which of these organic molecules first arose and how they formed the first life is the focus of abiogenesis." This quote from Wikipedia answers the first part of your question pretty succinctly. The theory explained is called abiogenesis.
The second part isn't too hard either. Mud is a very common thing as it is just created from sediments or dirt mixed with water so it's easy to see why that's still around. Babies aren't born with monkey tails because humans have evolved without tails thus our DNA doesn't code for us to have them. You also have to remember that all of this happens so extremely slowly that it takes millions of years for anything to happen.



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

Now, as my previous Wikipedia quote stated abiogenesis is the idea that life came from nothing, as naturally occurring chemical reactions created all the things needed to form the most basic of life. It is important to note, though, that it says "...which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory." As far as we know random assemblies of amino acids and such aren't being created as it appears one needs conditions similar to early earth, plus many commercial chemicals are very harsh making it all but impossible for them to somehow grow life.



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

Such a dramatic process would need hundreds of thousands not just thousands of years to happen. Also there is no force or pressure for humans to suddenly grow clothes as there is no shortage of ample clothing for the majority of humans. In a way body hair is a form of inherent clothing so in actuality humans are growing away from a type of biological "clothing."



I enjoy religious debate so I tried to be as neutral and logical as possible. Hopefully, you will take my input into consideration.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

... tl;dr ... Hopefully, you will take my input into consideration.

No.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I enjoy religious debate so I tried to be as neutral and logical as possible. Hopefully, you will take my input into consideration.

Thank you friend for your answers. I personally don't agree with them, they are far to convenient and I have learned not to trust anything to good to be true.

However may I ask you; if you are neutral why don't you consider Biblical sources in your reply? This sounds like a materialistic bias on your part.

[Winter Seraph]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

However may I ask you; if you are neutral why don't you consider Biblical sources in your reply? This sounds like a materialistic bias on your part.

I only tried to be neutral but it is invariable some bias or another filtered through and I think that we all have a bias of some sort thus I only tried my best to stifle. Also, in my interpretation of your questions I took it that you wanted an answer similar to that a scientist might give, as most scientist don't consider the Bible a prime source of information I also did not use the Bible.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I only tried to be neutral but it is invariable some bias or another filtered through and I think that we all have a bias of some sort thus I only tried my best to stifle. Also, in my interpretation of your questions I took it that you wanted an answer similar to that a scientist might give, as most scientist don't consider the Bible a prime source of information I also did not use the Bible.

Well these are all interesting excuses but don't you think we should rise beyond personal bias and the narrow agenda of an insular profession trying to protect it's income source when looking for the truth? We need to be open minded here and that means giving supernatural sources their proper hearing.

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Friend, I had no time to read each and every one of your ramblings, so I picked one at random. The question was:

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

To which your answer is:

Now, as my previous Wikipedia quote stated abiogenesis is the idea that life came from nothing, as naturally occurring chemical reactions created all the things needed to form the most basic of life. It is important to note, though, that it says "...which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth, in a scientific laboratory." As far as we know random assemblies of amino acids and such aren't being created as it appears one needs conditions similar to early earth, plus many commercial chemicals are very harsh making it all but impossible for them to somehow grow life.

Your answer doesn't address the thinking aspect of the human brain at all. You claim the human brain is a collection of chemicals that do not think.

However, the result of these chemicals is a brain that does some pretty complex things.

How can a brain have intelligence, when its constituent parts have not? Chemicals have zero intelligence, so no matter how many of them you put together, the total intelligence of all those chemicals put together always remains zero. In other words, just chemicals can never form a brain together.

So according to your theories, thinking is physically impossible. What more proof could you wish for that your theories are stupid?

[wally]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You people are SO stupid, I can't believe that, in a developed country like America people are living in such intellectual poverty as to actual believe in creationist theory. While all your questions could be answered with 'use your fucking head, dickwad!' I will answer your more interesting/stupid questions in a more civil manner however....

Account for the missing land sharks

The simple fact that, in order to hunt on land, a shark would need to evolve lungs and a means or movement (during which time they would be at a distinct disadvantage in the water - lungs would shrink gills and developing legs would impede hydrodynamics).

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible

How does this affect anything? Aside from the fact that the evidence for floods on Mars is sketchy at best, i wouldn't affect anything on Earth, the only planet which God, if he exists (and I have an open mind to this) would be concerned with.

Explain why human's aren't perfect

Partially see above but also, a third arm would have clear drawbacks (e.g. affecting balance).

Explain infant murder

Abortion is not a pathological desire (and nor is it murder, but that's another debate.) It is a conscious choice and therefore irrelevant to the principles of evolution

Why no bodies?

When the bodies decay, the atoms/molecules are used to create other things, they may be used to feed plants for example.

Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?

The existence of angels and demons has never been proven (i.e. no fossils have been found). If they were real and fossils were found I'm sure that their place in the tree of life would become obvious.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.

Garden of Eden, again another unproven concept. Snakes could never talk, end of.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?

Because they would fall over? And no they wouldn't grow wider because when volume increases, mass increases twice as quickly as strength.

Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?

If the events of the Bible are true, they clearly happen long after the demise of our ancestor species.

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?

For a start, calling my royal family a bunch of 'inbred deformities' is hilarious coming from a Creationist idiot like you. Again though, he made a conscious decision to procreate with his sisters and this is exempt from evolution theory.

I think that's all that I can be bothered to answer for now.

Please, for the sake of common sense, forget your deeply flawed and obviously wrong theories.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You people are SO stupid, I can't believe that, in a developed country like America people are living in such intellectual poverty as to actual believe in creationist theory. While all your questions could be answered with 'use your piffleing head, dickwad!' I will answer your more interesting/stupid questions in a more civil manner however....

I am disqualifying your answers for ad hominem attacks. Like any religious fanatic when presented with FACTS and TRUTHS you can refute you resorted to violence instead of calm reason. As a Christian fundamentalist I am offended by your extremism. You sir are an anti-Caucasian racists but we will not be your victim!

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I think that's all that I can be bothered to answer for now.

Well, that is very nice of you! I didn't bother to read your answers though.