The Question That Evolutionists Can't Answer

[bornagainathiest]

SD4M,

 

Why don't you ask the RedNeckedProfessor about evolution? 

If it isn't bona fide, then he's out of a job... seeing as he's a microbiologist, immunologist and epidemiologist. 

 

Or maybe you should go here... http://www.christianforums.com/f426/ ...and ask the likes of Papias, Gluadys, the Assyrian, SFS, ProgMonk and LucasPA about it.  These people are evolution-embracing Christians who don't believe in it as an act of faith - they are persuaded by the evidence.  Btw, the last one's a scientist.

 

(Please note that you'll have to join Christianforums to be able to interact with anyone there.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[bornagainathiest]

Way to go, Prof!

 

We've cross-posted.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Way to go, Prof!

 

We've cross-posted.

 

Great minds think alike; and for whatever reason, so do ours!

[florduh]

I'm just trying to show evolutionists that their faith in evolution exceeds a Christian's faith in God.

 

What a shame, I had been rooting for you then you posted this.

[Ravenstar]

 

I'm just trying to show evolutionists that their faith in evolution exceeds a Christian's faith in God.

 

What a shame, I had been rooting for you then you posted this.

 

Where is the 'showing' part?

 

Fail

[miekko]

The Theory of Evolution has more evidence to support it than any other scientific theory including the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity.  Y'all stop feeding this troll.  If he wanted to know more about evolution he'd do a simple google search himself.  He doesn't; he's already stated that he wants to demonstrate that "belief" in evolution requires "faith".  Anybody capable of making such a statement is also too close-minded to be swayed by proof and evidence.

Most scientists seem more likely to say that relativity and QM are the two theories in all of science that have the most empirical support. (The fact that they are inconsistent with each other isn't entirely a problem here.) It is difficult to perform experimental science on evolution (although not entirely impossible - breeding, computational models of evolution and some other things do provide experimental methods of checking some hypotheses. Evolution is of course open to empirical observation in some other ways, though.) Evolution is somewhat less 'strict' in its predictions than relativity and QM are - simply put, falsifying relativity or QM should be significantly easier, since their predictions are significantly more specific than those of the theory of evolution.

 

If evolution were false, it would be significantly less easy to disprove it than disproving QM or relativity would be. (OTOH, the amount of work that's been done to verify or reject QM or relativity is getting crazily huge, so... the likelihood for them to be crazily accurate is huge.)

[Mutantmoose]

This question surely isn't intended to inflame.  It's just something that I can never get an answer too.  Whenever I ask it, people usually point me to an article or book.   I want anybody who believes in evolution to tell me five things about evolution that you know are true (i.e., in your own words). Honest discussion.   

1. Fuji apples - these didn't exist in the USA when I was a kid, having only been developed in 1962. They are delicious and wonderful, and a great example of how evolutionary processes can be used to breed better foods.

 

2. Birth defects - these are a by-product of the general sloppiness and unpredictability of the genetic process that leads to evolution. Luckily we actually understand what produces these now, and can react with compassion and support, rather than assuming that children with birth defects are the results of demonic possession.

 

3. The recursive laryngial nerve - this nerve is the result of millions of years of evolution, and is present in all mammals. Basically, the process (which I will certainly report inaccurately, but close enough) by which we evolved from fish over millions of years included steps where the organs got shifted in one direction, forcing a laryngeal nerve to wend its way around one of the tubes to the heart. This is why one laryngial nerve goes from the brain to the larynx, and the other goes all the way down the neck, around the heart, and back up to the larynx. In giraffes, this thing is absolutely stupidly long.

 

4. Horses, donkeys, and mules - not completely speciated yet, horses and donkeys can mate (male horses and female donkeys, btw), and produce a mule, which is sterile. Meanwhile, all the different breeds of dogs can mate and produce offspring that can produce further offspring, although a chihuahua might need help to mate with a great dane.

 

5. Children look like both of their parents - if we didn't have the evolutionary process of genetic intermingling, everybody would look the same, a bunch of men who are identical and a bunch of women who look identical, all of them looking like Adam and Eve. You would choose a mate, get married, go to a baseball game, lose your mate in a crowd of 50,000 people, and never see him or her again.

[sandiego4me]

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

 

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

 

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

 

4.  The Cambrian Explosion.  99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed.  There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this.  Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium."  That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record.  That is hocus-pocus to the highest order. 

 

5.   How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs?  When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it.  How did it all come back in such a short time?  

[♦ ficino ♦]

I am no scientist, but even I can see that you did not read the responses to your question or are picking stuff from creationist websites or are a troll, or some combination of these.

 

1. already answered. abiogenesis is not evolution, so you're trying to answer a different question.

 

2. isn't even an argument.  talk about green slime becoming an elephant has nothing to do with any problem, it's just joking around.

 

3. you are restating the Irreducible Complexity argument, which has been exploded many times (but people more competent than I can explain why if they want)

 

4. not "virtually at the same time," not "suddenly."  The Cambrian period lasted for some 56 million years.  Anyway, how do creationists account for it?  They think God just then, and not during the hundreds of millions of years before, decided to create complex organisms?  It's one thing to note the strangeness of the Cambrian - even Darwin did that, and it didn't lead him to abandon the ToE.  It's another thing to propound an alternative SCIENTIFIC account, i.e. one that can stand up to experimentation from its own predictions and that can in principle be falsified.  This you have not done, nor have other creationists.  Goddidit is not a scientific explanation and fits into no scientific theory.

 

5. this is simply false

[mymistake]

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

 

 

 

That is proof that you God does not exist.  Science never says that all this came from nothing.  

 

 

 

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

 

Your ignorance is on display.  Evolution happens everywhere on this planet.  The rest of our star system is hostile to life.  We can't get to any other planet with life sustaining conditions.

 

 

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

 

Edit:

 

I don't know where the rest of my response went.  I guess I messed up the quoting code.  Anyway my response to 4 and 5:

 

When scientists call the Cambrian explosion rapid they mean on the geological scale.  The amount of time between humans inventing writing and humans visiting the moon was a blink of an eye.  A million years is about 100 times longer.

 

Not all life was killed during the KY boundary.  Rodents living in holes survived.  If they had not then you wouldn't be here today.

[Ravenstar]

1)... you are an idiot. Science does not say everything came from nothing.. you've been lied to. A singularity is not 'nothing'. This isn't evolution by the way, it's cosmology.

 

2...you are an idiot. Many bacterial life forms are goo, today. Check your fridge for this after a food item has gone bad... SLIME, it's bacteria. Many microbes have way more DNA than you do, and I suspect more intelligence.

 

3...you are an idiot. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130405064027.htm  PLUS, this isn't evolution, it's abiogenesis. Evolution is a fact.

 

4... you are an idiot. You are a complete idiot... on the Cambrian explosion. NO modern animals existed in the Cambrian explosion. They were all ocean/water dwelling creatures and most of those are extinct today. Please google 'Burgess Shales'.

 

5...you are an idiot. The rest of the world did NOT go with it. Many creatures survived, just not the very large dinosaurs because of CLIMATE CHANGE caused by the asteroid impact. Some mammals survived, so did insects, fish, and some dinosaurs who evolved into BIRDS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

 

The earth has had several 'extinction' periods where ALMOST all life was wiped out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

 

Here is ONE of the early mammals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutriconodonta

 

YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO

 

Please educate yourself:  http://talkorigins.org

 

Still has nothing to do with god.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

 

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

 

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

 

4.  The Cambrian Explosion.  99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed.  There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this.  Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium."  That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record.  That is hocus-pocus to the highest order. 

 

5.   How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs?  When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it.  How did it all come back in such a short time?  

 

 

All you are doing is displaying that you don't possess even a rudimentary understanding of the Theory of Evolution. This is after you were given several solid resources to consult in a previous thread months ago. When you demonstrate that you don't even understand the position you are opposing, nobody is going to listen to you. As I suggested before, spend some time over at the talkorigins website, get a copy of The Greatest Show on Earth or Why Evolution is True and then if you still have questions ask a biologist.

 

Though it's been said many times, many ways over the course of both of these threads, I'll repeat it again: Christianity fails on its own merits and has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. The Theory is certainly a problem for Christians, IMO, but whether or not it is true is not a problem for non-Christians. When some apologist or preacher told you that evolution was the foundation for most people's rejection of Christianity, they were lying to you. It's not. All in all it's just another brick in the wall. Stop listening to those idiots. They don't know what they're talking about.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

The Theory of Evolution has more evidence to support it than any other scientific theory including the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Relativity.  Y'all stop feeding this troll.  If he wanted to know more about evolution he'd do a simple google search himself.  He doesn't; he's already stated that he wants to demonstrate that "belief" in evolution requires "faith".  Anybody capable of making such a statement is also too close-minded to be swayed by proof and evidence.

Most scientists seem more likely to say that relativity and QM are the two theories in all of science that have the most empirical support. (The fact that they are inconsistent with each other isn't entirely a problem here.) It is difficult to perform experimental science on evolution (although not entirely impossible - breeding, computational models of evolution and some other things do provide experimental methods of checking some hypotheses. Evolution is of course open to empirical observation in some other ways, though.) Evolution is somewhat less 'strict' in its predictions than relativity and QM are - simply put, falsifying relativity or QM should be significantly easier, since their predictions are significantly more specific than those of the theory of evolution.

 

If evolution were false, it would be significantly less easy to disprove it than disproving QM or relativity would be. (OTOH, the amount of work that's been done to verify or reject QM or relativity is getting crazily huge, so... the likelihood for them to be crazily accurate is huge.)

 

 

As a biologist, I see relativity and QM as seperate, although related, theories.  Collectively, they may have more supporting evidence than evolution, but individually, they do not.  That said, the purpose of my reply was not to start a debate over whose kung-fu is the best.  It was to demonstrate the trollish nature of sandiego in the light of overwhelming evidence supporting evolution.

[florduh]

sandiego4me, I can tell that you are not a stupid person. There are only two possibilities remaining that explain your posts.

 

1. You have been brainwashed and therefore refuse to read the simplest answers that we have posted. You stubbornly continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Cognitive Dissonance is the term.

 

2. You are simply a troll.

[sdelsolray]

 

1. evolution is driven by the interaction of three things - random mutation, natural selection among those mutations, and the successful mutations being passed on to the next generation

 

 

…

I'm just trying to show evolutionists that their faith in evolution exceeds a Christian's faith in God.

…

 

 

Well, you better get started, because you have yet to provide any evidence to support this mere assertion.

 

And, before you do, please provide definitions of the following terms:

 

"faith"

"evidence"

"empirical evidence"

 

After all, any rational discourse requires a mutual understanding of the words being used, particularly these words.

[Brother Jeff]

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

 

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

 

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

 

4.  The Cambrian Explosion.  99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed.  There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this.  Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium."  That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record.  That is hocus-pocus to the highest order. 

 

5.   How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs?  When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it.  How did it all come back in such a short time?  

 

 

Your abysmal scientific ignorance is on display for all to see.

 

Back in my Christian days I briefly bought into that creationism bullshit. But then I educated myself. I hold creationists in absolute contempt because they are LIARS. They KNOW they are LYING and they don't care because it's a defense of their faith. You wanted "honest" discussion and you have gotten it. Shouldn't Christians care about being honest? Creationists don't. They LIE all day every day without feeling any moral qualms about it. It's disgusting and it's a HUGE turnoff. If creationists represent the level of honesty and integrity that is present in Christianity, then I want absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

 

You need to stop listening to LIARS and start educating yourself so you won't look like the ignorant religious fool you do now.

[slave2six]

I want anybody who believes in evolution...

 

Prepositions matter. One does not "believe in" evolution any more than one claims to "believe in I have a job." You can "believe that I have a job." Similarly, one believes that evolution is a valid theory (e.g. "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another"). For the same reasons, one believes that creationism is not a valid theory, because that theory does not support all the data available to us. 

 

The problem that you have is that you jump past all the data and go straight to an answer (god). Any data that does not support your answer is simply ignored. You then give this god human attributes. This is completely idiotic and arrogant. It's like an amoeba assuming that any god would be a giant amoeba. 

 

So, that said:

1. There is genetic data that proves the single origin of Homo Sapiens Sapiens in Africa

    

2. There is a ton of data showing the cosmological evolution of the universe (e.g. elements necessary for life are generated by supernovae, etc)

    

3. Biological evolution has been observed, reported, peer reviewed, and accepted as a legitimate conclusion for the observation

    

4. Archeology, paleontology and other similar disciplines have presented fossils that show a progression of simple -> complex life forms

    

5. Geological studies have demonstrated that the Earth has undergone many changes that relate directly to the types of conditions that such fossils would require in order to live during those periods 

    

   I'll add a sixth as well

    

6. The positions of the Christian Church with regards to scientific discovery have evolved over time. Even on the question of biological evolution, they have evolved from "creation" in the form of cookie-cutters for new animals to an idea of "intelligent design" which is very different (yet equally implausible).

[slave2six]

I'm just trying to show evolutionists that their faith in evolution exceeds a Christian's faith in God.

 

 

You are completely, 100%, and in all possible ways incorrect in this statement.

 

Your problem is that you do not understand the difference between thinking and believing.

 

We think that evolution is the best theory out there because hundreds of millions of people have supplied us with a vast array of data and evolution is the only theory that fits.

 

Conversely, you believe something that has no supporting data, cannot be proven and is simply inventive and imaginary. There is no critical thinking involved whatsoever in your belief system.

 

Call me weird but I'll take the magic of science over the magic of folderol any day of the week.

[sdelsolray]

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

…

This has nothing to do with the Biological Theory of Evolution.  Still, scientists do not "agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing."  The current leading theory in cosmology, the Big Bang Theory, does not state that matter and energy came from "nothing".  It states that they came from a singularity.  A singularity is something, not nothing.  

 

Your "something cannot come from nothing" is a classic straw man argument.  It is a logical fallacy.

 

Try again.

 

 

 

…

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

… 

 

You defy logic by invoking another common logical fallacy, the argument from incredulity aka the argument from ignorance.  If you actually study the Biological Theory of Evolution, and by that I mean spending at least 100 hours studying it, you should have a better understanding of how speciation occurs.  A nitpick…evolution theory does not predict or claim that green slime evolved into an African elephant.  It predicts and claims that the two species, green slime and the African elephant, have a common ancestor.

 

Again, I suggest you actually study the Biological Theory of Evolution, spending at least 100 hours doing so, and making sure your refer to the actual scientific literature, college textbooks, etc., instead of lying whore creationist websites.

 

…

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

… 

 

You assume the first life must have been a cell with, as you say, 10 million parts.  That would indeed be a near impossible event.  Fortunately, the Biological Theory of Evolution does not claim that the first life was a cell composed of 10 million parts including DNA.  And again, you are reaching into other science, this time abiogenesis.  Still, the handoff between abiogenesis (the first development of life) and evolution (the change in life thereafter) was not when the first cells arose.  It was earlier.  Evolution began once a self replicating molecule was formed capable of mutation and subject to natural selection.  In short, the first cell is the product of evolution, not abiogenesis.

 

Scientific investigation into this event (the formation of a self replicating molecule capable of mutation and subject to natural selection) continues.  No scientific Theory of Abiogenesis currently exists.  There are several competing Hypotheses of Abiogenesis, the most promising being the RNA Hypothesis.

 

I suggest you spend time, at least 10 hours, studying the various abiogenesis hypotheses.  They can be a bit difficult and complicated if you do not have the underlying knowledge in basic chemistry.

 

Your questions are based on a false premise, yet another logical fallacy.

 

 

 

…

 

4.  The Cambrian Explosion.  99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed.  There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this.  Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium."  That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record.  That is hocus-pocus to the highest order. 

…

 

 

Yet another argument from ignorance with some incorrect facts thrown in for good measure.  You're on a logical fallacy roll.

 

The Cambrian Explosion lasted about 40 million years.  That is not "virtually at the same time" (your words).  Prior to this period, life did not have bones, or shells or other hard parts that fossilize easily.  Put another way, nearly all prior life did not fossilize, so the fossil record is scant.  Punctuated Equilibrium is possible in certain circumstances.  Perhaps you should find out how and why.

 

If you actually were to study this subject, by spending at least 20 hours reviewing the actually scientific literature, your incredulity will dissipate.

 

 

…

5.   How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs?  When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it.  How did it all come back in such a short time?  

 

Evolution is a process acting upon self replicating matter, more specifically (on Earth at least) acting upon carbon-based life.  As such, as long as there is carbon-based life on this planet, the evolutionary process will exist.

 

You seem to claim that all life on Earth was made extinct when the dinosaurs became extinct.  Just not in any way you can demonstrate.  Not all life became extinct 65 million years ago from the collision of an asteroid/meteor with the Earth.  Again, your question is based on a false premise, a logical fallacy.

[slave2six]

 

Here are several reasons why I think evolution can't be true:

 

1.   Ex Nihilo, nihil fit.  "Out of nothing, nothing comes."   Scientists agree that 13.7 billion years ago there was, quite literally, nothing.  No atoms, protons, neurons, etc.  Nothing.  There is no scientific explanation for how something can grow out of nothing.  To me, it's just common sense.  If there was a point when nothing existed, then there was no scientific way for that to change.  

 

2.   It defies logic.   How does green slime turn itself into an African elephant, fire ant, or cockroach?   It doesn't.  Nowhere in the universe do we see this taking place. Heck, man cannot even do this with all of his brain power.  And we're to believe that a gob of goo with no brain, no construction manual, and no guidance, built itself into entities and creatures that are vastly superior in function than anything man can make.

 

3.  The first cell.  A simple cell consists of about 10 million parts.  Putting aside the fact that there never was any matter from which a cell could be self-created, how did this cell assemble all of its 10 million parts into working order?  Again, it had no brain, so it could not have sat there and figure this out.   Also, a cell burns energy.   What would this first cell consume to ensure that it had energy to get up and running?  It's like making a car and then realizing you have no gas.  Also, why would this cell suddenly decide that it wanted to start splitting itself in two.  And here's the real kicker:  the original cell HAD to have DNA inside it to perpetuate itself.  Where did this DNA lab come from, complete with its ability to automatically self-replicate itself?

 

4.  The Cambrian Explosion.  99.9% of all living things showed up in the fossil record a virtually the same time, already fully formed.  There is no steady progress in the fossil record to contradict this.  Evolutionists realize this problem and have come up with what they call "Punctuated Equilibrium."  That's a fancy way for saying that fully-functioning creatures suddenly just appeared in the fossil record.  That is hocus-pocus to the highest order. 

 

5.   How did evolution survive the death of dinosaurs?  When dinosaurs died, the rest of the planet went with it.  How did it all come back in such a short time?  

 

 

1. Then your god had to have a creator.

    

2. This is plain stupid. Hundreds of thousands of people have researched this and come up with how and why evolution works.

    

3. There is a reason why people point you to books and articles - they are written by people who have spent a lifetime studying one specific aspect of science and come to the only rational conclusions. You should spend time reading before making statements that demonstrate that you have no idea about what you are speaking

    

4. Cite your sources please.

    

5. Wrong! The event that wiped out the dinosaurs did not wipe out all life on this planet. Again, you really should read up on these things before you make silly assertions that have already been disproved.

[sdelsolray]

This question surely isn't intended to inflame.  It's just something that I can never get an answer too.  Whenever I ask it, people usually point me to an article or book.   I want anybody who believes in evolution to tell me five things about evolution that you know are true (i.e., in your own words). Honest discussion.   

I believe your fundamental problem is that you do not understand the concept of scientific inquiry.

 

The Biological Theory of Evolution is the best set of explanations for all of the available empirical evidence.  It is subject to change, modification or falsification (n whole or in part) if further empirical evidence shows otherwise.

 

As such, folks don't "believe in" or "have faith in" evolution.  It is simply the best explanation currently avaialable.

 

As such, folks don't "know" that evolution is true.   It is simply the best explanation currently avaialable.

 

Perhaps you should ask us, "What are five important components of the Biological Theory of Evolution."?

 

Of course, you could find out more about the Biological Theory of Evolution from other sources, such as a college textbook.  Perhaps you should do that.

[sandiego4me]

1)... you are an idiot. Science does not say everything came from nothing.. you've been lied to. A singularity is not 'nothing'. This isn't evolution by the way, it's cosmology.

 

 

Nobody is lying to anybody.  Eistein's Theory of Relativity unequivocally demonstrated that matter was not finite. Hubbel's discovery of an expanding universe further supported this proof.  These guys were hardly Christians.  Love how the immediate response to scientific proof is "You're an idiot."  Come on, I expect more maturity than that.   The simple scientific fact remains that at one time NOTHING in the universe existed.  I'm not talking about God.  I'm talking about matter. 

[sandiego4me]

2...you are an idiot. Many bacterial life forms are goo, today. Check your fridge for this after a food item has gone bad... SLIME, it's bacteria. Many microbes have way more DNA than you do, and I suspect more intelligence.

 

 

 

I'm talking about Goo that had no DNA.   The original Goo couldn't have had DNA.  Where did it come from?  Be that as it may, how come the Goo in my fridge doesn't turn into a giraffe?  If I left it there for a million years, it would be million year old goo.   

[florduh]

The simple scientific fact remains that at one time NOTHING in the universe existed.

 

What does this latest statement of yours have to do with your denial of evolution?

[WarriorPoet]

 

1)... you are an idiot. Science does not say everything came from nothing.. you've been lied to. A singularity is not 'nothing'. This isn't evolution by the way, it's cosmology.

 

 

Nobody is lying to anybody.  Eistein's Theory of Relativity unequivocally demonstrated that matter was not finite. Hubbel's discovery of an expanding universe further supported this proof.  These guys were hardly Christians.  Love how the immediate response to scientific proof is "You're an idiot."  Come on, I expect more maturity than that.   The simple scientific fact remains that at one time NOTHING in the universe existed.  I'm not talking about God.  I'm talking about matter. 

 

There is absolutely NO scientific evidence that says "at one time nothing in the universe existed".  You're right on one thing though, science does not yet, and may never have all the answers, but it does have a LOT of answers.  We do not know exactly how the big bang happened, but we know it did.  We do not yet understand all the processes that started life on this planet and the resulting evolution into the vast plethora of species that exist today, but we do understand some of them and we have been able to observe them in the world and in laboratories.

 

Faith can be described as believing something without evidence.  This is where you get xianity, islam and all other religions.  Believing something (such as Genesis 1-3) is literally true despite mountains of evidence to the contrary is not faith, it is LUNACY.