Search This Blog

Sunday, October 28, 2012

15 Questions that falsify or debunk evolution. 15 Questions that prove Darwinism is like a zombie. Darwinism is dead, someone just needs to shoot it in the head!

"Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, .It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers …" 10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? - From article below..."
 


Don Batten and the Creation Ministries International organization, and also 'Cowboy' Bob Sorenson of the Question Evolution Project team up to present 15 questions Darwinists cannot answer.   There are more than 15, naturally, but these are killers!


5 Questions for Evolutionists

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)
    seeds
    CMI Logo for project

  1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: 15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (Summary). Video on Question 1


  2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: The genetic information code points to an intelligent source. Video on Question 2


  3. Thanks to “Cowboy Bob” Sorensen for this ‘YouTube’ version of the 15 questions brochure.


  4. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
    Video on Question 3


  5. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
    Video on Question 4


  6. iStockphoto
    A vase of flowers: the vase clearly shows design; surely the flowers do much more so
    Everyone recognizes design in a glass vase, but evolutionists refuse to believe that the flowers in the vase must also have been designed. The problem is not that they do not show design, but that they show too much design. 

  7. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.3 See: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase) (includes animation).
    Video on Question 5


  8. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? See: Is the design explanation legitimate?
    Video on Question 6


  9. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? See: Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?
    Video on Question 7


  10. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). See: Argument: Evolution of sex.
    Video on Question 8


  11. Photo by Joachim Scheven
    Horseshoe crabs
    The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved. 

  12. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. See: That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
    Video on Question 9


  13. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.
    Video on Question 10


  14. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
    Video on Question 11


  15. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See: ‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
    Video on Question 12


  16. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, .It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers …" 10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
    Video on Question 13


  17. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.
    Video on Question 14


  18. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution, “It’s not science.
    Video on Question 15


Related articles

References

  1. Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
  2. Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
  3. Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
  4. Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
  5. Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
  6. Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
  7. Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
  8. Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
  9. As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
  10. Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
  11. E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
  12. pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
  13. Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
  14. Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

17 comments:

Jon W said...

"Darwinism is dead, someone just needs to shoot it in the head!"

Such violent imagery! Really, Radar, you must do something about this barely-repressed rage of yours. 'Tis most unChristian of thee.

Anonymous said...

There's Christian and then there's what Radar makes of it.

Incidentally, Radar, it's most enjoyable to follow the links, which include all the obvious debunkings, along with their not very plausible counterarguments.

radar said...

Darwinism is not a person, so obviously I am not dealing with suppressed rage against a person. I am just saying that the vast money and resources drain for the sake of a pagan religion is ridiculous and harmful and must end!

Also, Jon, you really have no idea what Christianity is but let me clue you in - if the resources used to try to prove Darwinism were turned towards curing cancer then cancer might already be as treatable as pneumonia. I consider Darwinism to be a pox on society and a hindrance to discovery and real science.

As for debunkings and counter-arguments, when they are presented here I rip them to shreds because they are in fact bunk. That is why people make general comments like that. Because by now the commenters know I can refute their mythology. But one at a time, if you barf out a bunch of stuff I will likely ignore it.

Jon W said...

" if the resources used to try to prove Darwinism were turned towards curing cancer then cancer might already be as treatable as pneumonia."

Some forms of cancer are already that easily treated. Other forms of cancer are untreatable and always will be. Talking about "a cure for cancer" only betrays your level of medical ignorance, because there are more different kinds of cancer than there are different kinds of cells in the body.

" I am just saying that the vast money and resources drain for the sake of a pagan religion"

Make up your mind, lad. One day you're accusing Darwin of being atheist, the next you're saying "Darwinism" is a pagan religion. Pagans aren't atheists.

"Because by now the commenters know I can refute their mythology"

Doubt ful ... and even if that were true, we know you can't refute the science, because all you have to work with is a pack of creationist lies.

Piltdown Superman said...

People love to pa-TROLL creationists to "set us straight", but do not accept a challenge to back up their claims. From this same site:

Are you willing to have a debate centered around the 15 questions for evolutionists via a recorded oral debate which would be distributed to tens of thousands of people?

If you are confident in your evolutionary beliefs, please make the necessary arrangements via this free chat room. You can make the necessary arrangements with the chat room moderators Shockofgod or VivaYehshua.
Alternatively, you can email Shockofgod via his YouTube email.

If you want to know more about the debate, any and all questions should be directed to Shockofgod or VivaYehshua

Jon W said...

Been there, done that. Multiple times. When creationists set up such "debates", they're always rigged in the creationists favor, because creationists can tell a hundred lies in the time it takes a scientist to answer just one.

When creationism is tested on truly neutral ground, the creationists always lose.

radar said...

Jon, you have proven that you do not know science and refuse to admit that you are beaten when logic defeats you. We went around this way before when discussing information and you still claim that emperor has clothes on!

Truth is that Dawkins and Myers chickened out on debating Sarfati in Australia because they know he'd shred them.

Tell you what, you get Dawkins or Myers to agree to debate Jonathan Sarfati on some neutral stage somewhere and I promise you that Jonathan would love to have the chance to cross logical swords in public with either of them or any other Darwinist you can name. But they are afraid to do it because they have no good evidence. It is Darwinists that use myths and lies and fairy tales to prop up their failed hypothesis.

Dr. Sarfati would shred any of them, anytime, anywhere and I suspect you know it just as well as they do - which is why you and every other Darwinist runs away from such challenges.

radar said...

Piltdown inspires me with his challenge to the Darwinists! So a song for Piltdown Superman to the tune of Donovan's "Sunshine Superman." Let me clear my throat...

"Piltdown came softly to my
my blogworld today
trolls thought he was easy but now
they've a-changed their ways

It was easy to boast when no one
took the time
to give them a chance to backup
their brags sublime

If they take on Piltdown he'll HANG them on the line
I'll tell you right now

any trick in the book now, trollers
that you can find
won't do you a bit of good 'cause
PILTDOWN owns your mind!

You should make your minds up to join the other side..."

Thank you, I'll be here all week!

radar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Piltdown Superman said...

High praise indeed, and I thank you. For the record, I am not into doing debates like the one that the "Question Evolution" site is offering. My debating is limited to comments on the Web when I have time. Often, I drop out because of logical fallacies and personal attacks from my opponents, showing me that further discussion is a waste of my time.

The response here is like the ones I've seen there: Lame excuses and accusations, but people are not willing to enter into an organized, public debate and try to prove that their naturalistic view is true. They prefer to throw stones from a safe distance.

Jon W said...

Somebody who thinks that energy and entropy are the same thing claims I don't know science? That's rich!

Radar, in the almost-three years since I discovered your blog, you've proven over and over again that you not only don't know jack about science, you also don't know jack about history, geography, politics, or mathematics. You still have never addressed the list of evidence that I say YEC can't explain. That's why I rarely bother to comment anymore -- I've never been very interested in physically abusing a deceased equid.

As for the information question ...

WACLHDBBZXXVIPPIMCWARFCCWS

radar said...

Oh, Jon, keep being you! You make me look good by comparison. Energy and Entropy are not the same THING and I never said that they were. I stated the principles of the Laws of Thermodynamics in laymen's terms and it would be great if you could grasp them. The entire Universe consists of matter that is in the process of losing energy and converting to entropy. Actually the science of this involves the measurement of heat and the Universe is heading for eventual total entropy aka heat death.

The LOT are descriptive of the giant watch that is the Universe which is winding down from the start. We see organization becoming disorganized and that is a general expectation of the LOT. You can bring work and information into a system and have that system operate in the opposite direction of the LOT but the total sum of all the efforts and work will still point in that same direction which is inescapable.

You do not seem to grasp what the LOT describe nor what it means to Darwinism, because if you did you would not make so many silly claims. Probably. So people like PZ Myers and Phil Gingerich are aware of their unscientific stances but they will take them anyway on religious grounds. Perhaps you are simply misled. So there is hope.

radar said...

Also, Jon, have you gone to the debate site to debate the creationists or are you afraid to try? Darwinists lose the debates because they do not have good evidence on their side. It is not a matter of Creationists telling lies, but rather pointing out observable evidence and documentation of historical facts. Darn that evidence stuff, huh?

Jon W said...

" I stated the principles of the Laws of Thermodynamics in laymen's terms"

No, you didn't. But even if you had, you'd still be wrong because you can't accurately state the laws of thermodynamics "in laymen's terms." The best you can do is roughly paraphrase them. The only way to accurately state the laws of thermodynamics is in the language of physics, and the language of physics is one that only trained physicists (and a few very determined amateurs) can speak and understand.

"The entire Universe consists of matter that is in the process of losing energy and converting to entropy."

See, you just botched it again. Most matter is stable, and neither loses nor gains energy. Neither matter nor energy can convert to entropy, because matter and energy are things, and entropy is a mathematical ratio. You might as well claim that you can turn rocks into light-years.

"You do not seem to grasp what the LOT describe nor what it means to Darwinism"

On the contrary. I do. You don't. The laws of thermodynamics don't forbid evolution any more than they forbid reproduction.

Jon W said...

" have you gone to the debate site to debate the creationists or are you afraid to try?"

Neither. I see no reason to waste my time there.

Anonymous said...

Paul Davies isn't an Evolutionist, he's a physicists with a god complex. LOL! Nice try though.

radar said...

Isn't it funny that Darwinists deny God but seem to have a "god complex" in that they are "above" debating with Creationists...yet, if they DO debate them, they consistently lose. The truth hurts!

Therefore, Darwinists use derision in place of arguments, make up fake fallacies to avoid uncomfortable evidence and put themselves on pedestals as superior human beings who will not deign to discuss matters of science and philosophy with mere Creationists.

Truth is, and those who study this will already know it, the entire idea of science as a field of study was birthed in the minds of great Christian pioneers. Higher education was once limited to clergy and royals. Theology and Philosophy and the Arts were the primary subjects studied in the Middle Ages.

Sciences were established by people like Grossteste and Bacon and Copernicus and Maxwell and Kelvin and Newton, believers all. In fact, the concept of allowing commoners a chance at higher education was birthed in the mind of Christians. The printing press was first constructed to print Bibles. The movement to raise up mankind from the bondage of royals and serfs was begun by Luther and Calvin in what we call the Reformation.

Darwinism is mythology, modern Pantheism with the patina of science but empty within.