Here are some questions for you evolutionists:



1.Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if evolution is true?

2. If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from a distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why, then, doesn’t the vast information (1,000 books of 500 pages each of coded information) stored in just one human cell imply an intelligent source?

3. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by spontaneous generation when all elements are needed at the same time in order to function.

4. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards?

5. How did the first cell begin? How did the first cell survive? Since it was the first and only living thing, what did it feed upon? How could it not only survive for millions of years on nothing, but even grow and reproduce. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

6. Since there was no living matter before that first cell --- where did the soil come from.

The rock at the surface of the earth was broken down into gravel and sand by the action of waves, wind, gravitational shock (i.e., falling and breaking), and by alternating heat and cold, which would fragment the rock by expansion and contraction. However, nothing can grow in pure gravel and sand. Soil is composed of decayed vegetation. Where did the soil come from for the first living cell of vegetation to grow in.

7. Since many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollination and reproduction, how did such plants survive for thousands, millions, or billions of years until insects finally evolved and got here? In order words, explain how you account for the intricate design mechanism of biological pollination.

8. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? If yes, where did it come from?

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?

10. In the Sixteenth Century people believed that dirty clothes and rotten food turned into rats and bugs by spontaneous generation --- Now, in the 21st Century, do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

11. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA --- which can only be produced by DNA? --- Seems to me, the only Scientific answer is that it all had to be Created at the same time! Please explain.

cited from www.traviscase.org


Ok, I know I and others have answered questions involving evolution, hell, heaven, death, Earth's age, the flood, and bunches of others, so now it's your turn.

 

You guys like to agrue macroevolution. What about microevololution? Even God fearing scientists recognize microevolution.

Also, most Christians assume Darwin was atheist. He was not. In fact is a the biggest benefactor for years to a certain church...do so primary research if this is something the tears you guys up as a hobby. Darwin's observations were pretty interesting in the light that Gregor Mendel's legendary gentetic work wasn't seen by anyone at that time.

Every wonder why there are so many varieties of corn, beans, greens, oranges, apples, dogs, chickens, cows etc.? Humans have been manipulation the genetic basis of microevolution for 1000s of years. The flu virus is constantly evolving.

Macroevolution is pervasive just like archeology in that it relies on unwritten evidence. Paleontology relies on the geological record.

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate on the FTE site though since I get caught in the middle of the arguement as part of my job.

I'm on here for my interest in my Ford's which I also use for work.

Thanks for a great site Ken!

 

Well, the answer is obvious to me...

 

I didn't ask you to change the subject. I asked you to give me an answer to the questions asked. Simple enough?

 

Broncozilla, I could not possibly agree more!!

"Aliens".

 

Actually, I didn't change the subject. You are asking questions that most of which have books, college & graduate level courses dedicated to them, maybe even scientific specialties...case in point.

"7. Since many plants are almost totally dependent upon insects for pollination and reproduction, how did such plants survive for thousands, millions, or billions of years until insects finally evolved and got here? In order words, explain how you account for the intricate design mechanism of biological pollination."

There are macro- and microevolution aspects of that question but the preponderance of arguments revolve around macro. Many pollination systems are so specialized that a plant species requires a specific organism to pollinate them...maybe and insect...maybe a bat which brings up the area of coevolution.

Why can't an Arctic fox survie in Alabama or a Red Fox survive in the arctic?


Maybe things showed up on a rock from outer space and seeded the earth.....

All I was pointing out is that this whole argument on this site regarding evolution is like debating on the the development (evolution) of Fords 351 and how to build the best engine for a Bronco. Guys could get into a heated debate over cranks, rod lengths, heads etc. But low and behold half of them are talking about 351 Windsors, many the the 351M and a couple the 351 Cleveland.

While microevolution can be rather obvious, macroevolution can be rather pervasive just like religion with both camps with individuals rather dogmatic. This dogma can be avoided by looking at the religion and evolution separately.

After all religion is based on faith and no one can really disprove god.

[B][B][COLOR=darkblue]

 

As you know; I'm neither. But I would like to take a proverbial stab at your questions. I have no doubt I will learn something in the process. So here goes . .


I feel the quantity of fossils "visible" would be entirely dependent on the ~actual~ time span over which these transitions occurred. They may well exist - just deeper than we have been digging.



I would have to say that in my opinion - IT DOES - conclusively (measured in common sense as opposed to metric units).

What I can not do is bring myself to exclude that it was not created by a vastly superior intellect - NOT - God.

you know; "extra terrestrial".



The need for functionality has been shown to CAUSE evolution. As lack of functionality has (witness deep sea fish that used to have eyes but no longer do - same for some cave salamander species).

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

My point is . . check the density of those planets in reverse rotation and you'll see some interesting food for thought I believe.

Too many questions in too small a space for my tiny mind. I think I can best express my address as an observation:

Two hydrogen atoms. One oxygen atoms. Either can exist "infinitum" alone. Upon combination, you have water where none existed ~ever~ before. My best guess for how sexual reproduction came to be . . . those atoms realized that bumpin stuff was fun (sorry - I had to).

A couple of possibilities come to mind right off:
1) when those atoms we mentioned about bumped into each other a byproduct was created. Why could the "bonding agent" that hold dirt particles together to form "dirt" not be a byproduct of the combining of various other atoms?

2) MOST upper layers of tropical beach sand (of the lighter colors) is actually parrot fish poop. . .well . . more accurately, parrot fish eat coral and poop sand. That sand makes up a majority of the "rough" sand found along the waterline of *most* tropical beaches. There are OBVIOUSLY other sources, but this is a surprisingly large contributor. <== check it out, it's fascinating actually! My point is that "dirt" is also a by product of other forces at work.

Respectfully, where did the rocks grow from? To my knowledge atomically pure rocks are even rarer than courteous and safe drivers in Florida.

Plants evolved to depend on a method of reproduction that required them to put less energy (nutrients) into reproduction and more energy into surviving challenging "soil" conditions thus propagating the species and leading to greater bio diversity.

I'm sure you can recall my verbal stumbling above, please.

Multi-part answer, sorry, I see two easy theoretical:

1) The complexity is a result of molecular evolution. ("byproducts" as mentioned earlier)
2) It does require a heck of a lot more intelligence. I see a viable question in; was it "God" or was it an "Alien" that did it.

Heck NO !! But if you combine it with enough other atoms . . .

[/B][/QUOTE]

The proteins were atoms at one time. No?

In closing. . . obviously I have provided no answers. I sure wish I had some.

Sorry.

 

ctfuzzy:

I believe in creation. It makes far more sense to me and has far
less descrepancies.

" The need for functionality has been shown to CAUSE evolution. As lack of functionality has (witness deep sea fish that used to have eyes but no longer do - same for some cave salamander species)."

This as broad an answer as what you call "macroevolution". The point here come long before functionality as a cause. The fact is that eyes and the brain needed to interpret their "data" are highly developed organs that don't assemble themselves in one jump of mutation; not only that, but as is observed in the lab today, virtually all mutations are harmful to the organism, not beneficial. Furthermore, what you have used as an example ( deep sea fish and salamanders, may well represent a process,but what? Would that be more a function of breeding than evolution? How about pitbulls, "evolving" through the centuries to be master killing machines born with a passion to fight, the effect of being thrust into the pits, leaving only those dogs with the most formidable traits to survive?

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Exactly, which leaves us wondering what the cause of a supposed "big bang" was, or, as Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"

"Plants evolved to depend on a method of reproduction that required them to put less energy (nutrients) into reproduction and more energy into surviving challenging "soil" conditions thus propagating the species and leading to greater bio diversity."

Brilliant, but only a postulation that cannot be proved. "A" for creativity, though. Of course, this violates the second law of thermodynamics, though, which states that the normal order of the universe is for things to degenerate from order to disorder, not the opposite way around. Since we're speaking of insects, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

"It does require a heck of a lot more intelligence. I see a viable question in; was it "God" or was it an "Alien" that did it?"

At least you're asking the right questions. The main point is, it seems to indicate a outside mechanism that has intellect, pattern, and design.

"The proteins were atoms at one time. No?"

The proteins are MADE UP of atoms, arrange in intricate ways to form proteins, by DNA, which is also made up of proteins. Its the classic, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" question. The next question to follow your alien thoery, would be the origin of the alien.

Unfortunately, you haven't even made a stab at answering the feeding/reproduction question, even though I can appreciate your humor on some level. This mystery also involves the quandry of highly developed organs and systems as have previously been discussed.

Let me present an alternate position:
The scriptures are divinely inspired by God, using men as the vessel.
There are several scriptural references to this throughout the bible.
"Though the earth and sky shall pass away, thyne word stands forever."

One convincing fact of the veracity of the scriptures is the
unceasing plethora of fullfilled prophecies in our history, many of them
made hundreds or even thousands of years before their fullfillment in
our history.
Specifically, and for example, there are over sixty major messianic
prophecies and approx. 270 ramifications that were fulfilled in Jesus.
Using the science of probability, we find the chances of just forty
eight of these prophicies being fulfilled in one person to be only one
in ten to the 157th power.
Yes, one could possibly find one or two prophecies fulfilled in
other men, but not all sixty major prophecies and 270 ramifications. In
fact, if you can find someone, other than Jesus, either living or dead
who can fulfill only half of the predictions, concerning Messiah, which
are given in "Messiah in Both Testaments" by Fred John Meldau, the
Christian Victory Publishing Company of Denver is ready to give you a $1000.00
reward.
Using the modern science of probability in reference to only eight
prophecies, we find that the chance that any one man might have lived
down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10
to the 17th power. That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000.

 

Dogs and domestic plants are a result of humans messing with microevolutionary forces some of which have taken centuries and some which of taken a few years or decades.

Not all biologist agree on or interpret the "Big Damn Bang" theory any more than the Baptists, SDAs, Catholics, or Lutherans can agree on the the Scriputures.

Like I said, Religion is based on Faith.

Tree devoloping a new variety of blast resistant wheat based on faith and some people won't be eating bread in a few years...unless Jesus shows up and turns some more water into wine and catches some fish.

 

True, and evolution is more of a religion, its definitely not science. It does not fit the guidelines of the scientific theorem, as it cannot be reproduced as a process in a laboratory.

 

Broncozilla,

thank you for the well thought out reply. Your attacking the issue and not the person is also greatly appreciated.

May I ask you to please address your basis for excluding "extra terrestrials" as potentially filling a . . . causitive role?

I realize you asked me ' where did ~they~ originate? ' and that could well be considered an answer - reasonably. But you must also realize the same question must be asked of God's origin by those less convinced than yourself that he "simply IS and allways has been".

()

 

Well, in a nutshell, that would be because of my religious faith and beliefs. Whatever aliens are out there, I believe also came to be through his hand. There is even scripture to back this idea, wherein Jesus stated, "I have other flocks, too, in other places"
I also find it difficult to fathom that mere mortal aliens would be capable of engineering so much in the way of the variety of lifeforms and their support systems that we see on this planet; aliens also don't really address the whole issue of the planetary systems and the rest of the universe.
While I don't respect all beliefs of all people, I recognize the need to respect PEOPLE, so there is no need to attack you instead of the issue.


True. I don't have the answers to God's origins, but I am just a man. Even if you only temporarily humor my faith to examine this issue, you have to admit that a being capable of creating the universe would not be one that you or I would expect to be an intellectual peer or that we could reckon with. This being the case, we may not ever hope to comprehend what God is and knows.
One possible aspect of God that may be part of the answer to the mystery, is that He is not limited by the physical laws of this dimension, and may operate from another dimension. If this were the case, then, since we have spent our entire lives within our known dimension, as well as the countless generations of scientists and physicists that came before us, we could hardly expect to comprehend or understand the workings of an, as of yet, unknown dimension.

"As the sky and the heavens are above the earth, so are my thoughts above yours. My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my will is not your will."

 

Microevolution can be proven in the lab. A good example is the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria on Petri dishes i.e. selected for.

Another is "white" tree squirells that occur in some municipalities but in the "woods" would be taken out in short order be predators, i.e. selected against.

This is of course genetically driven. And point mutations etc. can occur.

Why are certain religious groups threatened by the mere mention of "evolution"?

I know some very devote evolutionary biologist that have authored texts that are extremely religious (Baptist) and "tea totalers" to boot.

Stereotypes don't work.

As CTfuzzy said, thanks for keeping it civil.!!!

 

Broncozilla - !! Excellent !! Thank you sincerely. I'll need to ponder on this for a while.

<== happy little bouncer

 

As I hinted at earlier, I think these are more so examples of breeding than "evolution". The selective mechanisms of breeding can be natural or induced. Once again, this is a far cry from an organism suddenly sprouting astoundingly highly developed organs and systems, such as lungs and a circulatory system. The system must work completely, within minutes, or the organism dies. It simply cannot happen in steps.


I think the choice of an emotive word such as "threatened" is rather biased. I am not "threatened" by evolution, (which I initially accepted as fact growing up) as much as I am frustrated and finally divorced by the endless contradictions (as I see them) and questions that it breeds in my mind. It simply doesn't make sense to me. I came to Christianity from agnosticisim, so I consider myself fairly objective. To be frank, so many fullfilled,many ancient prophecies found in bible text were the most compelling of evidences for me, which began to sway me in this direction. I then began questioning a lot that I had been taught by our educational institutions. I truly came to believe objectively in creationism and theism and to disbelieve evolution; if I learn of answers to evolution, things could potentially change,but honestly, the more I examine history and our world, the more staunchly I come to believe in God. This is not unlike Einstein, who also stated that the more he learned of the universe, the more he believed in a superior being behind it all.

As far as Christians who think evolution and creationism are symbiotic, I feel they have not fully examined all of the ramifications of such a belief. I am a fundementalist, that is, I believe the scriptures to be infallable and of devine inspiration, and one major component of evolution constitutes a glaring contradiction to the scriptures, mainly in the line of thematic content: Scripture tells us that death, disease, and evil came about as a result of "orginal sin". That is, God allowed these things to invade the early world as a result of our faithlessness and sin, and refusal to recognize his purpose for us, and that, only then did death exist as a consequence. Once one accepts evolution, life becomes simply a meaningless struggle of death and survival.