[SalvationSeeker]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

I see that the satan worshipper with the silly name has scurried out of this thread, crushed and defeated.
I claim victory for Jesus Christ and His one and only true Church!
Praise Jesus! God ALWAYS wins!

[Noodle Follower]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

There is only one and once you are touched by his noodly appendages you will never look back to this meaningless talk of your false christ.!!!!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all and I have read his literature and have come to save you all!

[Newton]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

OK, can't edit posts on here so I'll just continue:

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

The Big Bang is where all the space from the Universe came from (I know you are pedantic about English - Universe should be capitalised). Now, the origins of the Big Bang came from God. This can be scientifically explained also, essentially proving God. An intense source of energy, such as God can spontaniously create matter (this can be observed in partical accelerators).

2. Where did matter come from?
Ditto to above, matter can be created from an intense source of energy, which I believe to be God.

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

As has been said previously in other posts - they came out of necessity. God put into place a perfect system of laws (e.g. gravity and thermodynamics) as it was essential for human survival.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Again, out of necessity. Also - God is quite good (strangely enough) at organising things perfectly.

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

From God?! These questions are essentially repeats of themselves. Matter is simply concentrated energy so organised matter is powered by itself.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Amino acids have two functional groups - NH2 and COOH. These are naturally occuring chemicals. These chemicals fused together on carbon to create amino acids - such as glycine and adanine. More advanced ones like proline and cystein followed. Amino acids form polymer chains which make proteins. Proteins, in turn, create structures like ribosomes (to make more proteins), cell membranes etc. There are only 20 amino acids in our body, so relatively few actually exist. As for when - I don't know an exact date but many billions of years ago. Why - it was spontanious. I personally believe God made it happen.

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

When - fairly soon, and because it had to, otherwise it would die out (survival of the fittest). It would have originaly been mitosis (ie, asexual reproduction) and eventually meiosis would have evolved. Life would not have "learnt" to reproduce anyway. Where - who knows, there are two theories, one is in the primordial soup (nutrient rich shallow water), the other is near black smokers and in other acrid environments (we can see similar processes happening now. Now, it probably first occured by a random mutation of the RNA replicating (which is quite common, a similar process occurs with victims of Downes Syndrome and other genetic diseases. A random replication of RNA followed by a split of the cell (for whatever reason) would have formed two new daughter cells. This trait would have become fixed in the RNA.

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

It would have reproduced with other like-species, and meiosis would have occured.

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 this?)

There is adaquate nutrients in the world to support a vast population (obviously) so the chances of survival wouldn't be too different. Naturally, its a survival of the fittest situation, life would have to reproduce in order to survive. A single organism will NOT survive because it will die, either by disease, old age or simply getting consumed by a more dominant life form.
A foxes and rabbits scenario: lots of grass = lots of rabbits = lots of foxes. Lots of foxes = less rabbits. Less rabbits = less foxes. The population keeps itself in tact by the food chain. Alterating any factor will alter the food chain, but it will stabilise (Le Chateliers Principle applied to nature is how I like to think of it). This is just talking about complex organisms, rather than simple bacteria where nutrition isn't a factor.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
If you recombine English letters you could produce Chinese books! If letters are overlaped you could hypothetically produce Chinese books. A similar thing happens with mutations. Everything in life is chemical. Each combintion of nucleotides (AT CG and U) will produce a different amino acid. I can't remember off the top of my head any particular combination but say a random mutation that made a new combination of nucleotides will produce a new amino acid and thus brand new proteins and then that opens a gate for improvements in life.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Similarities in design is expected in evolution! Again, its call genetic, the elephants closest relative is actually a type of shrew. We humans are 98% genetically identical (in fact I think its a higher percentage than that) to chimpanzees. So obviously, similarities are unavoidable. There will always be dominant organisms and all organisms will want to be dominant, and there will be a standard design that allows an organism to achieve dominance! I personally believe that we do have a common Creator who "kick-started" the evolutionary process.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
You've said it yourself - mutations. The genetic code is actually very simple. There are four letters (nucleotides) in the genetic code; adanine, cytocine, guanine and T/U (depending on whether its DNA or RNA). Its basically binary with two more numbers/letters. Natural selection does not keep the species stable, we can only observe stability, but looking at it on an evolutionary time scale, natural selection causes evolution.

13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?

a. This is fairly obvious. Lets take the Portugees Man o' War for example. Looking at it one would expect a multicellular organism, but it is, in fact, many single celled creatures working together. The first multicellular oganisms would have evolved in a similar way.
b. These questions are simply repeats. Mutations!
c. Fish changed to amphibians because it allowed dominance. A case in question would be the mudskipper, which spends a lot of its time out of the water, but is a fish! It displays some amphibian like characteristics.
d. Newts display repitilian features. The worlds biggest amphibian, a species of newt, is almost totally land based, and one should not feel embarrased for mistaking it for a lizard.
e. They are not disimilar genetically. A heart is a heart and is almost exactly the same in any animal. Thats why humans can survive with pigs hearts inside of them. Two dinosaurs (lizards) appear similar to birds. We'll look at caudipteryx, a dinosaur, but with feather wing-like features. Originally these would have been used for stability whilst running, however, flight would have occured from there. Creatures like archeopteryx could have evolved from caudipteryx. Caudipteryx evolved hollow/lightweight bones and other bird like features as it helped with its survival. The other dinosaur was gallimimus (chicken-mimic).
f. As above, caudipteryx could be considered an intermediate. This dinosaur was an insectivor and incredibly fast runner. Other intermidiates I have mentioned previously include the mudskipper.

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

a,b,c - these are essentially the same questions. I believe Gods hand was in evolution. They evolved, as always, because it increased their chances of survival.
d. Its all chemical and genetic, random mutations could form eyes, which naturally, were beneficial to organisms.
e. Ditto to above.
f. Nails and claws are the same thing as hair and is a simple chemical called keratine. Feathers and scales I'm not sure about to be honest, my knowledge on evolutionary biology is not good (but good compared to you guys here at Landover).

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body痴 resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

a. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? (The egg is the answer to that question). The digestive juices are simple chemicals, so yeah, they came first and obviously proved beneficial for creatures to have, so they evolved to efficiently make use of the juices.
b. You have asked this question, its the need to reproduce.
c - i. A similar principle to a. Termites, however, do not have flagella do digest cellulose. Flagella are used for locomotion. Cillia, however, are present in the digest system. Nevertheless, flagella provide an interesting case study for evolution. They did not evolve, originally, for locomotion, but instead for other reasons (National Geographic did a good article on this recently so I won't go into detail), but bacteria realised they could be used for locomotion, and we are now familar with the end product!

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

There are? Name one. We must teach evolution because it is scientific fact.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

They developed mimicry because it was a useful defence mechanism! There are many examples where creatures are camoflagued for defence. Other creatures, like mantids are camoflagued for attack. Mimicry in the sense of creatures evolving like one another is expected for reasons given previously.

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Emotion is chemical. Please have a sufficient knowledge of a subject before you deny its credibility. One can become addicted to a particular emotion, such as anger, in a very similar to the way one can become addicted to smoking, so yes, they can be explained by evolution.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

I am not an evolutionary biologist. However, photosynthesis occurs in humans also, and bacteria and lots of other creatures. Synthesis just means "making use", so photosynthesis is making use of light. We humans make vitamin D from light. So photosynthesis will have actually been around from a very early stage, again, its chemical, its complex, in the sense that it is hard to learn, but its actually relatively simple in principle.

20. How did thought evolve?

Ask God. I believe God had a huge hand in evolution. Some thought, as in emotional thought, is chemical, thinking, in the sense that I am thinking as I am answering this question, would have come about in a similar way to speech. For example, many creatures talk to each other, giving warning signs or signaling an attack, for them to be communicating they must also be thinking.

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

Again, I am not an evolutionary biologist, or a botanist. Flowering plants evolved during the Cretacious period (sp?). Come to think of it, its relatively simple. A plant must have male gametes to undergo sexual reproduction. If, for whatever reason, a maraurding insect picked up these gametes and transfered it to another plant there is a chance that it would come into contact with the female gametes of that plant, causing sexual reproduction. Plants would then adapt to attract insects, by growing petals and producing nectar from nectaries to form a symbiotic relationship with many species of insect.

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

How many kinds are there?! There are two types of evolutionist, macro and micro evolutionists. Use your logic here, macro evolution is evolution on a grand scale...Single celled organisms --> humanity. Micro is less grand than that, micro evolution is simple natural selection style evolution, but not involving hugely drastic changes. I am a macro evolutionist.

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

As has been said previously, I would ask to see it.

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Depends on what you mean by clear. There is a lot evidence that supports macroevolution, as science dictates, you cannot draw conclusions from a single peice of evidence. The same applies to religion, I am not a Christian exclusively because of the Bible, other sources tell me that Jesus Christ died for me. So while we don't have a totally concrete peice of evidence, we have many peices which point in the right direction. Its like atomic theory, we haven't "seen" atoms (in the traditional sense), but we know they exist. Again, to be pedantic, "one clear prediction", does not make sense, "one clear peice of evidence", however, would.

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

Quite a lot. Although it wasn't just hydrogen gas, of course. The Big Bang produced a whole array of gasses essential for life, such as methane and water (which naturally both contain hydrogen), but also non-hydrated compounds like cyanide and nitrous oxide. What is so scientific about God? Nothing, but I still believe in Him. Both science and religion require faith.

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Nope, and neither does a Creationist.


After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.


1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

I am, they reflect my religion. I see Gods hand in the world, in evolution, in everything. I study Gods fundamental laws and the more I learn, the more in awe of them I become.

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist and believe in evolution. Faith is belief in something that cannot be proved, and I admire and atheists faith, regardless of whether I agree with them.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?

It is possible, and true, in my opinion. However, you and I have differing opinions of how the Creator went about creating us! If God is excluded, then I can't see how we would be here, so I agree with you. However, as I said previously, any intense source of energy can create spontanious matter!

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Yes.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Who knows? Now your talking phillosophically and asking me to predict Gods actions.

6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
a. It is all they have been taught.
b. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
c. They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
d. They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
e. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.

a. Perhaps, but most people in the West are also well aware of the Bibles account of Creation, so probably not.
b. Definately not. The majority of people are not "evil". Everyone sins, everyone, but most people live mostly moral lives, regardless of religion, or lack of it. Most people who do not have a faith do not go around killing people or raping or people or any other immoral thing. Besides, this question is irrelivent to the subject of evolution.
c. Again, no. I have Creationist friends who have decent jobs in secular workplaces and are open about their opinions. My biology teacher is also a Creationist and has not lost her job.
d. No, Creationists are far more closed minded than evolutionists. If someone gives me a reason to dismiss evolution, I will.
e. Eh? This is irrelevent and untrue.

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

We don't have a suitable substitute! An evolutionist would say a Creationist has an outdated theory, if you understand what I mean. Evolution is a more recent theory ant therefore isn't outdated. There are very few disproved theories in science, VERY few, there are, however, a lot which are under question. Theories, by definition, are not proved or disproved.

8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?

No! Science is very important and a child will be better equiped for society armed with knowledge of science and evolution than they will with an unscientific theory like Creation. In religious education lessons, it is more important to teach children decent morals. However, naturally, Bible study and study of other religious texts is important too, and a child should also have knowledge of them also.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

I'm risking nothing. If evolution is wrong and I die, I will not go to hell. I maybe wrong, but I have not sinned, and I have been saved by Jesus Christ.

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.

They aren't afraid. In fact, most evolutionists, I hope, would agree that religion is incredibly important to society and a decent knowledge of it is essential. Evolutionists, however, get VERY annoyed when Creationists demand that Creation should be taught scientifically as evolution is. Many biology teachers have lost their jobs for teaching evolution as scientific fact. That, I'm afraid, is something which evolutionists are justified in thinking.

11. Aren't you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn't it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?

You are asking these questions in a emotive and stupid way. Questions should favour both sides of the argument. Evolutionists have a lot of evidence under their belts and it most certainly can be true! It is AWESOME to know that God made me (via evolution) and I accept His love and forgiveness.

12. Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, click on the Paypal button at the bottom of this screen
I know how to have my sins forgiven, and I know how to reach Heaven, when I die, I will be there.

____________________________________________

Now, I know your reply will be a lot of derrogatory comments towards me saying that I am evil and stuff. This is not true. Keep and open mind and "LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR".

[Born Again Bob]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Dear Friend,

Science is very important and a child will be better equiped for society armed with knowledge of science and evolution than they will with an unscientific theory like Creation. In religious education lessons, it is more important to teach children decent morals. However, naturally, Bible study and study of other religious texts is important too, and a child should also have knowledge of them also.

You know what Jesus has to say about this? "No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Luke 16:13.

The Bible says one thing; your science says another. Which do you hold to, and which do you despise?

For all your fancy talk, that's what it comes down to.

Yours in Him,
bab

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Newton, I think what you meant to do in doing a multiple-post of very similar material was to revise your original thoughts. I will go out on a limb and assume that the last version is your best shot.

To keep the thread semi-coherent I will delete the prior versions -- that way it doesn't look to the casual reader of the thread like a string of spam posts. (I am sure your intent was not to spam the board with multiples.)
----

If I might play devil's advocate, so that we may understand how the sinner will attack some of your points:

Gravitation is counted as a negative quantity when totaling up the matter-energy balance of the Universe. As far as physicists can tell, the actual matter-energy content of the universe may well be exactly zero! Or, as one might say of the young Keira Knightley, it is almost perfectly flat.

There would be no need to posit any creation of matter and energy at the nub of the Big Bang; the universe may have come from nothing at all.

What we call the universe, in short, came from almost nowhere in next to no time. Says M.I.T.'s Alan Guth, a pioneer of inflation theory: "I call the universe the ultimate free lunch." One of the consequences of inflation, predicted 20 years ago, was that the universe must be flat—as it now turns out to be. (from Time.com)

How should we Christians answer the claim of secular astrophysicists who say there is no more need to posit God's creation of matter and energy than there is to posit that a hedgehog is necessary for nucleosynthesis?

In Christ,

~~ OEJ

[Newton]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

I posted several copies, I had to do it in stages because I had a variety of interuptions whilst in the process of posting the topic, and yes, I did revise some of the wording of some of the points too, to make the answers more coherent. Thank you for the deleting the previous posts, I would have done it myself, but was unable.

The Keira Knightly comment made me laugh. I am not an astrophysicist so my actual knowledge on the Big Bang isn't as deep as I'd like it to be, so I can't dispute what you have said. I don't believe the Universe can have come from nothing at all, for the simple matter (sorry for pun) that God, from a Christian perspective, must have Created the Universe, the means that He did it are what is in question, but God is something, what, who knows, but He is definately something!
But as I have said before, the effect of the Big Bang can be demonstrated in particle accelerators, due to a huge energy generation followed by spontanious matter creation.

As for the second paragraph, I'm not 100% sure what you are talking about. There isn't a need to posit Gods Creation of matter and energy, as such, but its certainly something important that requires good and reasoned thought.

From an evolutionists perspective, nucleosynthesis would have occured before hedgehogs so the two items in question are not dependant on one another, from a Creationists perspective, they may well be, I don't know. But as you said, it depends on how you look at it.

_______

One does not need to serve two masters to appreciate science and faith. My Master is the Lord Jesus Christ. Science is a means of studying His divine workings in the world we live in. Science is not my master, in the same way any other interests I have, such as music, poetry and sports, are not my masters either.

Science and the Bible do not say opposite things. As I said in another topic, it depends on the interpretation of the Word. Ultimately I hold to God, but as I said above, I enjoy learning about how His hand is so intimate in the world we live in. I am in awe of how He has Created this world we are in.

_____

I would be appreciative if someone spent time debating my points, as I spent time answering the questions proposed. In that way, we can have an academic and reasoned debate and the topic.

[Brother Cletus]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

I would be appreciative if someone spent time debating my points, as I spent time answering the questions proposed. In that way, we can have an academic and reasoned debate and the topic.

Friend, I think you've got it all wrong. You want to have "an academic and reasoned debate". We, on the other hand, want your soul to be saved. When you die and go to Hell, you can have all the academic debates about particle accelerators and photon torpedos that you want, with all the other "scientists" (falsely so-called) that you want, because they'll all be burning right beside you.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

One does not need to serve two masters to appreciate science and faith. My Master is the Lord Jesus Christ. Science is a means of studying His divine workings in the world we live in. Science is not my master, in the same way any other interests I have, such as music, poetry and sports, are not my masters either.

Science and the Bible do not say opposite things. As I said in another topic, it depends on the interpretation of the Word. Ultimately I hold to God, but as I said above, I enjoy learning about how His hand is so intimate in the world we live in. I am in awe of how He has Created this world we are in.

And Jesus would be appreciative if you would stop spewing filthy lies, using His name to justify your monkey worship. You are no more a Christian than the sealskin chair I am sitting on.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

_______

One does not need to serve two masters to appreciate science and faith. My Master is the Lord Jesus Christ. Science is a means of studying His divine workings in the world we live in. Science is not my master, in the same way any other interests I have, such as music, poetry and sports, are not my masters either.

Science and the Bible do not say opposite things. As I said in another topic, it depends on the interpretation of the Word. Ultimately I hold to God, but as I said above, I enjoy learning about how His hand is so intimate in the world we live in. I am in awe of how He has Created this world we are in.

_____

Interpretation? There is no interpretation of the Bible allowed friend.

2 Peter [20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Gods words a crystal clear friend. I do not need some atheist telling me He is somehow wrong.

[AwesomePants]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

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

A metaphysical axiom is existance. The universe has always existed.
However you chose to look at it something cannot have been before existance, because if it was before it implies time exists without regard to existance itself and that's impossible.

2. Where did matter come from?

Matter cannot be created nor can it disappear, this has been proven over and over. I guess I'll have to tell you that A = A, also an axiom. Matter only changes, for example if you boil water it doesn't disappear, it changes form.

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

They did not spring out of a hole in the ground or something like that. You assume that they have to come from something. Prove why.
To answer the question, they have always been just as existance has been, A = A.

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Apparently you have not studied much physics, matter is not perfectly organized at all.

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

Energy is another for of mass. E = mc2

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

Dead matter? A concept which with I am not familiar.
If you're referring to how life appeared then I am sure you already have heard the evolutionary theory, I'm also sure you do not listen to anything from people saying that. If you're truly interested in understanding this, buy a book on it.

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

Not how it works... it did not learn. That would imply that all life is capable of learning...

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

Two organisms combine genetical material. If you're wondering what these organisms used to transport this material to eachother then you should just use your imagination

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 this?)

Plants have a very limited area from which they can extract food and water, but they can spread their seed over quite big areas, thus increasing their chance of survival since they wont interfere with other plant's areas.

For animals it is the same thing really. When they run out of space eventually the fitter ones will be the only survivors (this is basically how survival of the fittest works) and by adapting they've increased their species chance of survival.

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

Imagine a group of humans living in a very cold place, without any kind of technology (I'm talking pre historic ice man conditions, as an example). Four children are born, two grow up to have very thick body hair, thus making them warmer, and two grow up with almost no body hair, which pair gained the improved verieties? That would be an example of gaining improved genetics through mutations.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

It's logically impossible, because the existance of a creator implies so many other things.

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

It has already been explained. Survival of the fittest.

13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve? <--- there are none
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
f. How did the intermediate forms live?

You can google this, I really do not know the exact dates


14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Google it dude...

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body痴 resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

Really? Same as the two above.

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

The reason for the theory of evolution is not to have it as an unquestionable truth... The only reason to not teach creationism in schools is because it is impossible to defend it as a scientific theory.
At the moment there are no other theories other than the theory of evolution (I guess you want creationism here but I mean real logical theories, not postulated bullshit without empirical evidence)

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

It's a consequence of how the humand mind works. Love, mercy, guilt, etc. did indeed evolve. Feelings are completely natural.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

I'm just gonna skip answering the questions that are seriously explained a few mouseclicks away from google... I hope that's ok. You can even find them in childrens versions

20. How did thought evolve?

This is an interesting question! But basicly it's the fact that your senses experience the world. You see an object with your eyes, and you see anotherone right after that, these objects have different characteristics that you can see because of the fact that you've seen another object and wohoo you have your first primitive concepts. That's really covering it quickly but if you want to know more just read some epistemology.

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

... see my answer to 19.

22. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

I am not an evolutionist like you are a christian. I think for myself so I wouldn't like to label myself as an evolutionist because it could imply that I blindly follow whatever a scientist tells me, and I do not. Doing that would be narrow-minded of me.

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

Reptiles to birds maybe? I guess it's not "true" if it's not in the bible so why try...

25. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

That's not really how it works XD

But the evolutionary theory in itself is a theory backed up by empirical evidence. That's what makes it scientific. I thought this was obvious to everyone.

26. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No I do not. That is very narrow-minded of you. Not all people rejecting all forms of mysticism believe in the big bang.
Everything coming from nothing is a contradiction, it cannot be true.
Existance has always been, in one form or another.

I took my time to answer this, I hope you will actually read it before you go batshit crazy on me.

[Petal]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Imagine a group of humans living in a very cold place, without any kind of technology (I'm talking pre historic ice man conditions, as an example). Four children are born, two grow up to have very thick body hair, thus making them warmer, and two grow up with almost no body hair, which pair gained the improved varieties?

i not unnerstand evilutions cuz so many middle-easterns folk be real hairys, even some of the ladys have mustaches , an being hairys not make no good sense in the deserts cuz it so hot there. if evilutions were true then them desert folk not be so hairys

I took my time to answer this, I hope you will actually read it before you go batshit crazy on me.

even tho your messages be evil, i shore appreshiate you beings so polite cuz so many evilutionists are mean to us

[Aristotle]

no reproduction

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

Not how it works... it did not learn. That would imply that all life is capable of learning...

So your Daddy never told you about the Birds and Bees? Good thing because we don't want your kind re-producing.

[MTR XD5]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Really? You completely misinterpreted what he said... Over simplifications cause misunderstanding... Please read over comments carefully and make sure you make a legitimate comment, question ,or concern.

[John Scopes]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Resurrecting an old thread in this place is a poor way to start, based on my observations you may be on borrowed time already.

DNA challenged individuals that may or may not reside here will almost certainly take umbrage at your premise. You will note there are only 20 questions. There is a good evolutionary reason for this. That is the number of fingers and toes that the typical human has, and as a consequence is as high as many here can count.

[Aristotle]

Re: 20 Questions For Evilutionists

Resurrecting an old thread in this place is a poor way to start, based on my observations you may be on borrowed time already.

DNA challenged individuals that may or may not reside here will almost certainly take umbrage at your premise. You will note there are only 20 questions. There is a good evolutionary reason for this. That is the number of fingers and toes that the typical human has, and as a consequence is as high as many here can count.

You may think your REAL smart and so much brighter than we TrueChristians™ when it comes to science but at least we don't have to ask where the Universe came from. Moses gave us the answer in Genesis.