Questions For Darwinists

[Hollie]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

How should faculty members discuss non-science in a science class?

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

What is it doing in science class?


"Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution...throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms."
(From an April, 2001 article entitled “Scant Search for the Maker” Times Higher Education Supplement, 2001.)

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

Darwinism isn't science....it's politics.

Not sure what you mean.

"... there is no evidence for [Darwinian] evolution..."

There really is.

Actually, there isn't.

. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the animal Kingdom," Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

". . . there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." G.R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, ( N.Y: Harper and Row, 1983) p. 60.

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

I added these to A>B>C>D is not science, it is unintelligent

There are scores of other citations all confirming the fraudulent nature of what atheists call "fact, fact, fact" and compare to gravity.

I bet you are referring to this:

“Although Darwin’s theory is often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity, very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution.” Philip Zaleski

I bet you think an author of books on spirituality should be posing as a scientist.

I bet you knew that outside of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam, there doesn’t exist an anti-science, anti-evolution cult.

Congratulations. You strive to live in fear and ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything. Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

It’s comical that the religious extremists apply the attribute of “incomprehensible” to their gods and then immediately slather those gods with various attributes such a ‘timetables”.


Brain size alone is not an indication of intelligence.

More complex combinations of neurons allow for more a complex set of options. For example, the ability to respond to more than one sensory input at a time. Responses might still be automatic, but they no longer are binary. Different combinations of inputs will result in different outputs, literally different decisions. Even more complex combinations of neurons allow for more complex decision making calculi. Let’s move to a human level and discuss the type of limitations that exist, demonstrating that the potential continuum of consciousness extends beyond our current state of “achievement.”

We evolved as hunter gatherers, and our brains are organs designed for an organism that existed in tribes of perhaps 50 individuals. During the course of a lifetime, hunter gatherers would be expected to have known no more than about 1000 individuals. As a result, when we make decisions and are required to make assessments as part of routine decision making, we are naturally able to understand risk at various levels. It is biologically relevant to us as a species.

 

[Silver Cat]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything. Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

Why would you consider bioengineering to be supernatural when we do that now? Why couldn't God have done it then?

He could, of course. But the speed of changing is too low for any intelligent creature. I can hardly imagine any intelligent being, writing 750 Mb of code for billions of years.

 

[Silver Cat]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

"Natural selection" is "so slowly".
"Artificial selection" - "the very short time".

"Supernatural selection" must be much more faster than "artificial selection". But we don't have any undoubted evidence of the "super fast evolution".

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything.

I believe in God. But I need to explain facts, too. We have the facts of evolution, and we have to explain them. The Theory of evolution is the simplest and best explanation of the observed facts.

Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

We are God's children. We can "comprehend" everything.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

Who said, that they are not "smarter"? But their intellect is mostly used to control their huge bodies.

 

[zaangalewa]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

Although I know the real scientific theory of evolution is not wrong I must say I'm much more impressed from all the people, who do not accept Darwinism. What you say here is excellent.

Let me say personally: The ideas about evolution, which Charles Darwin had, were not half as important as the most people think. Selective breeding was nothing new in the last 10,000 years. The idea that nature on its own makes the same what we found out, because we took a look at this what nature was always doing, so we were able to do this on our own, was not half as astonishing as the most people in world think today.

By the way: Evolution needs creation. Creation needs not evolution. And what you call "design" call evolutionists "gap" or "ecological niche". If you take a look all around then you are in theory able to see ecological niches - but only in theory. No one is able to take an ecological niche and to show what will be the organism which will fill this gap. It indeed looks like as if something what we have to describe with "spiritual" or "idea" or "information" ... is somewhere in theory - but such a niche is like a nothing, before anyone is able to see it. So everyone has to wait until biology will fill this niche with an animal or other life-form. Only if an animal exists we know the answer - before we don't know the answer, what will be filled in into an ecological niche.

I hope you will get some good answers. And let me say again that I am much more impressed from the people, who do not accept the stupidities, which are often said from Darwinists (or racists) - although I am convinced the real scientific theory of evolution is not wrong.

-----
All creatures on earth feel like us, all creatures strive for happiness like us. All creatures on earth love, suffer and die like we do, so they are equal works of the Almighty Creator – our brothers
Saint Francis
-----

 

[PoliticalChic]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

Although I know the real scientific theory of evolution is not wrong I must say I'm much more impressed from all the people, who do not accept Darwinism. What you say here is excellent.

Let me say personally: The ideas about evolution, which Charles Darwin had, were not half as important as the most people think. Selective breeding was nothing new in the last 10,000 years. The idea that nature on its own makes the same what we found out, because we took a look at this what nature was always doing, so we were able to do this on our own, was not half as astonishing as the most people in world think today.

By the way: Evolution needs creation. Creation needs not evolution. And what you call "design" call evolutionists "gap" or "ecological niche". If you take a look all around then you are in theory able to see ecological niches - but only in theory. No one is able to take an ecological niche and to show what will be the organism which will fill this gap. It indeed looks like as if something what we have to describe with "spiritual" or "idea" or "information" ... is somewhere in theory - but such a niche is like a nothing, before anyone is able to see it. So everyone has to wait until biology will fill this niche with an animal or other life-form. Only if an animal exists we know the answer - before we don't know the answer, what will be filled in into an ecological niche.

I hope you will get some good answers. And let me say again that I am much more impressed from the people, who do not accept the stupidities, which are often said from Darwinists (or racists) - although I am convinced the real scientific theory of evolution is not wrong.

-----
All creatures on earth feel like us, all creatures strive for happiness like us. All creatures on earth love, suffer and die like we do, so they are equal works of the Almighty Creator – our brothers
Saint Francis
-----

Interesting post.

 

[Hollie]

Questions for religionists

Stumper Questions for Creationists

www.talkorigins.org

What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

• Exposition of creationism.
• Definitions of terms.
• Evidence for creationism.
• Rules of evidence.
• Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
• Evidence which modifies creationism.

How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

• evolution
• primitive
• natural selection
• theory

(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

• What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
• What is does conventional science say?
• What is the evidence for conventional science?
• What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the sameanswers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

• Coherence of many different dating methods.
• Chronological distribution of fossils.
• Spatial distribution of living things.
• Relationships between living things.

Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

• Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
• Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?

 

[rightwinger]

There is no question that Evolution is a FACT.
It occurred, simple organisms evolved into more complex organisms.That conclusion is supported by Biological, Fossil, Geologic and DNA evidence.

The how and why it occurs are theories. The fact that it does occur is not

 

[esalla]

Any idea of "Intelligent Design" must explain, why "supernatural bioengineers" work so slowly - 750Mb of the human genome were "developed" in billions years.
Even the simplest forms of artificial selection (say nothing about bioengineering) create great morphological diversity in the very short time.

Make up your mind. Was it "so slowly," or "the very short time" - "billions years"?

There were no "supernatural bioengineers." There is only Nature's God, specified in our Declaration of Independence, celebrated this very day. Nature's God has His own timetable. We don't "need to explain" anything. Nature's God is incomprehensible. Does an earthworm comprehend people driving past in their cars? We are as earthworms.

Incidentally, sperm whales have the largest brains of any animal on earth. Why aren't they smarter than we are since Darwinists have argued that Lucy, allegedly our first humanoid, had a brain about one fifth the size of ours and we "evolved" our larger brain to be so much smarter. Why aren't sperm whales smarter?

Why would you consider bioengineering to be supernatural when we do that now? Why couldn't God have done it then?

He could, of course. But the speed of changing is too low for any intelligent creature. I can hardly imagine any intelligent being, writing 750 Mb of code for billions of years.

Dude grow up, no code can change at any speed until it first exist and there is no evidence or rational scientific explanation for code writing itself from a random collection of atoms. Code is written as a byproduct of existing intelligence. If life wrote itself it would have written itself on every planet and moon in this solar system although differently. Thus God is a scientific requirement

 

[ChemEngineer]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

1) I don't.
2) Feel free to express your doubts and search for evidence to the contrary.
3) It's not science.
4) Waah!
5) Nice strawman you got there.
6) Wrong, each mutation does not require an advantage.
7) Who cares?
8) Isn't evolution cool?
9) Strawman.
10) Why is God a student cramming for tomorrow's exam? Why can't he take billions of years?

 

[Hollie]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

Typing in CAPS adds that sense of DRAMA and URGENCY. Really, it does and everyone knows it.

Just curious, but with answers supplied to one or more of
The Ten Questions For Darwinists, who will respond on behalf of the creationers?

 

[esalla]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

The answer to all the questions is the mental retards that believe in God overshadow their intelligent counterparts

All professors know that DNA is a code and that all codes were written, the sad side of this is that if one believes this we become tools terraforming planets

 

[ChemEngineer]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

NOBODY has attempted after months. Atheists who think they are smarter than God - nothing from them. Zero.

 

[Hollie]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

NOBODY has attempted after months. Atheists who think they are smarter than God - nothing from them. Zero.

Well, if you say so.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com


Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison

How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters scientific and scholarly ought not to degenerate at all, unfortunately degeneration is the essence of the "intellectual" side of virtually all evolution discussions.

The error in this widespread demand, viz., "give us your alternative theory or else shut up," is the Fallacy of the False Dilemma.

To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense.

The Flat Earther label is another extremely disingenuous tactic used by Darwinists. That nobody on earth believes it to be flat never deters Christophobes from making the claim.

I never found any malicious name-calling in any of my chemistry books, or my math books, or my physics books, or my biology texts. Nevertheless you see such unscholarly conduct all the time.

Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, generally including comparison of gravity with Darwinism. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the individual trying to make a point or advance a reasonable question.

This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision. Incidentally, Richard Dawkins, famed evolutionary biologist, used the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinists" in his books. There is even a book by the name, Darwinism Defended, by Michael Ruse.

To the extent that skeptics of what we commonly call "evolution" invoke issues outside of science, they should be cautioned to address science with science.


Questions for Darwinists:

1. Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Why should someone with such doubts be falsely maligned as being ignorant and against all science?

3. What are faculty members afraid of that they usually will not tolerate any discussion of intelligent design?

4. Why are articles on intelligent design almost universally censored in the United States, if, as Carl Sagan said, "Almost nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics"?

5. If science (Latin "scientia", for knowledge) represents the search for knowledge, then why has there been so much intellectual dishonesty propounded in the last 150 years, including recently, when intentional misrepresentations (lies) have no place in scientific debate?

6. Since Darwinian evolution claims such tiny steps solely by means of "selection," then each new mutation requires a distinctive advantage, without which no selection is possible. Taking for example hemoglobin, what are the most recent intermediaries leading to hemoglobin, and how did each one provide a comparative advantage, specifically?

7. Why are none of the nodes or origins of any "tree of life" ever shown today?



8. How can extending the timeline for statistics improve the odds of the event, when for example throwing dice and flipping coins are independent events whether they are done all in one day, or thousands of years apart?

9. Why do Darwinists invariably fall back on the trivial claim, "All we're saying is that evolution is a change in allele frequencies, which is profoundly different from "the ascent of man from a single celled animal is fact, fact, fact, as well established as gravity"?

10. How can so many different animals navigate so very precisely for thousands of miles, often for the first time in their lives, when humans need maps and directions for one city, and the best we can do to "explain" the navigation we do not understand is to call it "genetic"?

NOBODY has so much as attempted to answer even one of these ten questions. NOBODY.
They have no answers and everyone knows it.

NOBODY has attempted after months. Atheists who think they are smarter than God - nothing from them. Zero.

NOBODY has attempted after months.

Liar.....

Questions For Darwinists

http://QuestionsForDarwinists.blogspot.com Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. – Thomas Edison How compelling some arguments can seem to be, even if they are found to be absurd on closer examination. While debate in matters...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dagosa]

Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

Simple. There are lots of science illiterates. Using quotes from notables or imitating the phrases and words of ligit science just to sound like they know what the basics of science does is just woo woo and attention getting. They’re favorite line is to start off with a false statement then try to discuss its merits. One of the first things you should do if you want to be taken seriously, is to bring a dictionary or glossary in the text your denying with you.
Deniers maybe educated in some things but the vast majority are science illiterates or politically motivated.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Simple. There are lots of science illiterates. Using quotes from notables or imitating the phrases and words of ligit (sic) science just to sound like they know what the basics of science does is just woo woo and attention getting. They’re (sic) favorite line is to start off with a false statement then try to discuss its merits. One of the first things you should do if you want to be taken seriously, is to bring a dictionary or glossary in the text your (sic) denying with you.
Deniers maybe educated in some things but the vast majority are science illiterates or politically motivated.

That was in response to my post, viz.,
ChemEngineer said:
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

--------------------

"Simple" Dagosa said. Spelling is simple and yet Dagosa screwed that up worse than a sixth grader.

He and his ilk attack anything questioning Darwinism by the ad hominem attack. "You're stupid so shut up."
I am no science illiterate, nor are the many scientists, statisticians, and information experts I have cited in my website. We are not politically motivated. The attempt to maintain archaic nonsense first propounded over 150 years ago is ill-conceived and illogical because they intentionally ignore the points made or simply try to lie their way out of them, quite unsuccessfully.

The statistics of original polypeptide synthesis are insuperable. End of Darwinian extrapolation.

 

[alang1216]

I am no science illiterate, nor are the many scientists, statisticians, and information experts I have cited in my website. We are not politically motivated. The attempt to maintain archaic nonsense first propounded over 150 years ago is ill-conceived and illogical because they intentionally ignore the points made or simply try to lie their way out of them, quite unsuccessfully.

I've heard your anti-evolution arguments before and they have been, IMHO, debunked. Seems to me, it is your side that intentionally ignore the points made. Many different sciences point to evolution and NOTHING points to creationism. Creationists begin with the answer and work to fit the evidence to it.

The statistics of original polypeptide synthesis are insuperable. End of Darwinian extrapolation.

No, that is your strawman and carries no weight.

 

[Hollie]

That was in response to my post, viz.,
ChemEngineer said:
Why do you tolerate your peers calling well-educated individuals who pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, "flat earthers" and "fundies"?

--------------------

"Simple" Dagosa said. Spelling is simple and yet Dagosa screwed that up worse than a sixth grader.

He and his ilk attack anything questioning Darwinism by the ad hominem attack. "You're stupid so shut up."
I am no science illiterate, nor are the many scientists, statisticians, and information experts I have cited in my website. We are not politically motivated. The attempt to maintain archaic nonsense first propounded over 150 years ago is ill-conceived and illogical because they intentionally ignore the points made or simply try to lie their way out of them, quite unsuccessfully.

The statistics of original polypeptide synthesis are insuperable. End of Darwinian extrapolation.

View attachment 687721

The screeching polypeptide synthesisslogan is one you litter across most threads, yet, it's one you mindlessly copy and paste from any one of the crank fundamentalist ministries. Copying and pasting slogans related to material you don't understand seems to be a behavior common to hyper-religionists.