Evolution is a stupid belief, and I can prove it.
I have here, 10 questions that evolutionists have never been able to answer with an infallible argument. Or even a good answer for that matter. I want you, and anyone you can find to attempt to answer these questions. Should I find a question that I can not refute logically(not playing the God card) then I shall post the answer and a new question. Then, you can use all the answers here to bash creationists. Of course should I find something to refute the answer I will post on here.
So make yourself feel good about being able to bash a Christian Creationist by him asking you for it. Please do be respectful though.
1. Which came first? Time, Space, Matter or energy?
2.Where did the necessary materials to create the universe come from and
where did they exist if there was no space?
3. Where did life originally come from if it can not appear spontaneously?
4. Which came first? Male or Female?
5. Why do we find petrified trees standing up through supposedly “millions” of years worth of geological layers?
6. What were the first elements to be formed?
7. When and how did the stars come to be?
8. When did the laws of nature(i.e. Gravity) first come into effect?
9. Why is an unproven theory used as fact?
10. How did the universe start(please provide specified details)?
Those are the ten questions, I hope you find time to attempt to answer them.
“I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone-the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.” – George Gallup
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.” – Albert Einstein
February 18th, 2011 at 14:44
I have written a lengthy response to the above questions, though for efficiency sake, I have published it on my own website and provided a link below.
http://www.paranormalpeopleonline.com/10-answers-a-creationist-doesnt-want-to-hear/
February 18th, 2011 at 15:29
Replied on another post. Thanks for trying.
February 18th, 2011 at 15:35
So, you have no rebuttal?
February 18th, 2011 at 15:36
No, my rebuttal was in the form of another blog post.
March 10th, 2011 at 06:20
None of your questions involve phenomena explained by the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life, not the origin of life(Abiogenesis), the origin of the universe(Cosmonogy) or other phenomena addressed by the branches of Chemistry and Physics.
So in a sense, you are a correct, evolution can’t answer these questions, because they do not belong to its domain of study.
March 10th, 2011 at 06:28
So you’re saying that evolution can only attempt to explain the universe after the first cell?
You can’t answer if male or female organisms came first?
The thing is that evolution has no pillars to stand on until something is here. But no one knows how something got here therefore making a big question for evolution.
I might as well say “Once upon a time there was nothing, BANG explosion, universe created from nothing by natural cause, POOF first cell, now it can evolve.”
Or I could say “On the backs of crystals”.
June 26th, 2011 at 09:54
I’m not sure if you’re a troll, or if you actually don’t know what evolution is, but only 2 of the above questions relate to evolution (4 and 9, and number 9 isn’t even a scientific question). The rest of them relate to cosmology, astrophysics, geology, or chemistry.
I CAN answer 4 and 9, however. As to the origins of males and females. Many simpler species reproduce without specific genders, such as bivalves or some species of jellyfish (most plants, too). However, sexual reproduction “forces” a mixing of genes, providing a greater likelihood of a positive trait being passed onto the next generation (as opposed to hermaphrodites, which often fertilize their own spawn, or mate with genetic twins). Natural selection would gradually favor one sex per individual over two, but the process wouldn’t be immediate. So, unless we were there as the first “completely male/female” animal was born, it’s anybody’s guess as to its gender.
Number 9 is not a reason to disregard evolution, and is a terminally defensive question. Evolution is not an “unproven theory,” it’s been backed up by several divergent realms of science and has been corroborated by over a century of observation and testing. Creationism used to be the default explanation for the origin of life, but it was dropped in favor of evolution, because THERE IS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM. A “theory” is the highest position a scientific explanation can hold, such as “germ theory” and “the heliocentric theory.” Creationism is NOT a theory and is not even scientific. It is untestable, makes no predictions, and relies upon the non-eyewitness account of an anonymous author written almost 2,000 years ago. That’s why creationism is not going to go in science classrooms anytime soon.
June 26th, 2011 at 12:39
It seems that you have been tragically mislead. The veracity of evolutionary theory is not dependent on exact knowledge of abiogenesis. This independence is particularly evident in any other context. Say, for example, that I walk down to the kitchen one morning and find a puddle of water on the floor. I clean it up, but a couple hours later it’s comes back. The facts in this situation are that there is a puddle on my floor that keeps coming back. My theory concerning this puddle is that there is leak in the piping somewhere that sprays water whenever the sprinkler comes on. If I can find the source of the puddle – an improperly sealed pipe connection perhaps – I would have some support for my theory. When would it be necessary for me to know which reservoir the water came from, or the chemical composition of the pipes?
June 26th, 2011 at 12:55
Even IF we could not answer your questions, it doesn’t mean that god did it… God of the gaps is stupid.
And instead of bashing government, homosexuals, science and liberals on your “christian” blog, you should take the time to read about science. It would give you answer to your question and you would realize that 1) carvXV is right 2) evolution is not magic 3) creationism is magic.
Btw, when you write “Evolution is a stupid belief”, you are wrong. Evolution is not a belief (creation is), it’s the best way to understand what we can see with our eyes. Oh, and read this please : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality
June 26th, 2011 at 13:02
“So you’re saying that evolution can only attempt to explain the universe after the first cell?”
Not only does evolution not begin to explain the universe but it makes no attempts to do so.
Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe, the origin of the planets or how life began. Evolution is about the formation of species in existing life. Your question makes as much sense as expecting the law of gravity to explain where babies come from.
“You can’t answer if male or female organisms came first?”
A question based of ignorance, it is like asking who puts the gravity atoms into things to make them fall down. Life started off asexually and over time, differing sexes developed. Do you think that there are males and females in simple bacteria?
“The thing is that evolution has no pillars to stand on until something is here. But no one knows how something got here therefore making a big question for evolution.”
Wrong, that makes a question for the origin of life. A mechanic need not know how the parts of a car are built, let along how the materials are gathered, in order to do his work. You are basically asking the wrong people, like an artist how paint is made, a construction worker how bricks are made, hopefully you get the picture.
“I might as well say “Once upon a time there was nothing, BANG explosion, universe created from nothing by natural cause, POOF first cell, now it can evolve.”
You could, but that would be going against the evidence and not being scientific at all. Scientists don’t come up with this out of nowhere you know, they examine the evidence and come to reasonable conclusions. If their hypothesis stand the tests and peer reviews of others then it is now a scientific theory. That’s right, the word theory in science means something completely different from what you think it does. What? Did you think the “law of gravity” was an actual law that you could be arrested for breaking?
June 26th, 2011 at 13:41
You can say whatever you like. That doesn’t mean it is even close to being correct.
Science never claims to know with 100% absolute certainty. Science gives us the best explanations given the facts we know about observations that have been made. Religion claims to have absolute knowledge of everything, but has no way to demonstrate this knowledge.
However, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Many high-ranking church officials accept evolution, the Dalai-Lama has stated that any scientific advancement made that contradicts a Buddhist principle is accepted as truth and that Buddhism should not rely on anti-scientific ideas.
You need to fight science with science. It deals with the natural and physical world, things that anyone can test and achieve the same result. You are making the claim that science is wrong. You need evidence to show that your idea is the best logical conclusion from the given evidence. You cannot presuppose that God exists if you truly want to counter scientific knowledge.
You are attempting to counter a specific field of study by asking questions that pertain to other fields. Learn about the thing you are opposed to. As far as evolution is concerned, it doesn’t care how life started, because all it does is explain the diversification of life. It doesn’t matter how the sun formed, because all it does is explain the diversification of life.
Your questions are inappropriate when dealing with evolution.
Also, science corrects itself as more information comes in. If something is incorrect, it will be corrected. It works, though. We’ve developed sterile operating environments, created artificial limbs, immunity to life-threatening illnesses, extended the human lifespan, increased the amount of crops grown by fewer people with allows 6 billion people to survive. Science has put men on the moon, built a spacestation, sent robots to Mars, and captured images of galaxies billions of light years away. Science has done so much for us, yet you challenge the strongest scientific theory that we have and you provide no evidence to support your claims.
June 26th, 2011 at 13:44
Still, this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution doesn’t need the origin of matter to back it up, as they are unrelated. What you should have called this post was “10 questions I can’t answer.”
June 26th, 2011 at 17:47
Evolution is not a theory explaining “the universe”. It is not a blanket worldview. It shows how life has grown, changed, evolved and the diverse species that came out of its process. The concept of evolution has nothing to do with anything outside of the planet, meaning stars, planets, time, etc.
You should read more about what evolution is before you start trying to “disprove” it.
May 6th, 2011 at 18:49
1. Not really sure, but probably all simultaneously (according to the big bang theory).
2. You have not demonstrated that there are necessary materials for the origin of the universe, this question has a false primes.
3. Life came from non-living matter with some characteristics of life, I suspect. Hard to investigate.
4. I hear that when sexes first appeared in organisms similar to paramecium’s, there were many sexes, a dozen or more. Male and female are the only two surviving among organisms with multiple sexes.
5. The layers were once soft, dead trees sunk into it.
6. Hydrogen is the simplest element and was also the first.
7. Stars formed after the universe cooled to the point that gravity was stronger then the pressure in it. Gravity pulled gas together, the pressure built up, it got hot, nuclear fusion began.
8. After the big bang, physicists do address this question, I don’t know the answer.
9. You confuse the terms “fact” and “theory”. Theories are explanatory models which actually describe and predict events. Facts are just what we see. Our observations and measurements. Scientists don’t confuse them. The difference is important and obvious. The theory of evolution is a theory. Seeing speciation is a fact.
10. There was nothing at all, no space, time or matter. This caused random tiny realities to apear, containing space, time and matter. They grow over time and eventually collect into the universe we see today.
May 26th, 2011 at 13:30
No offense, but only one of your questions (#4, the origin of sexual reproduction) concerns evolution. Evolution explains how life changes in relation to its environment over time. It does not attempt to explain the origins of the universe or the beginning of life.
I suggest you change your title.
June 26th, 2011 at 09:01
i’ve got some questions that history can’t answer:
1) How many golf balls can fit in a school bus?
2) What is the square root of minus 1?
3) If god is all powerful, can he create a rock so big, even he can’t lift it?
4) Where do all those biros go that I keep losing?
5) How do we cure AIDS?
Seeing as history can’t answer these questions, it’s logical to assume that history is a flawed method of study and we should all rely on the bible to understand what happened it the past.
June 26th, 2011 at 09:40
Questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 have nothing to do with evolution.
Question 9 is a troll/trick question. Question 4 is the only that actually has something to do with evolution and the answer to that is “neither”.
June 26th, 2011 at 10:05
1) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
2) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
3) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
4) This one is actually relevant, although only vaguely. The simplest idea is they arose simultaneously, here is what wikipedia says about how sexual reproduction arose:
All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species[citation needed]. Many protists reproduce sexually, as do the multicellular plants, animals, and fungi. There are a few species which have secondarily lost this feature, such as Bdelloidea and some parthenocarpic plants.
Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via homologous recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was.[18] The most primitive form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.[23]
Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is: copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g.: yeast, filamentous fungi).[24] Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction, but rather an example of horizontal gene transfer. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a “selfish gene”, the F-plasmid.[23] Similarly, it has been proposed that sexual reproduction evolved from ancient haloarchaea through a combination of jumping genes, and swapping plasmids.[25]
A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primitive organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the ‘eaten’ organism’s DNA was incorporated into the ‘eater’ organism.[23]
Sex may also be derived from prokaryotic processes. A comprehensive ‘origin of sex as vaccination’ theory proposes that eukaryan sex-as-syngamy (fusion sex) arose from prokaryan unilateral sex-as-infection when infected hosts began swapping nuclearised genomes containing coevolved, vertically transmitted symbionts that provided protection against horizontal superinfection by more virulent symbionts. Sex-as-meiosis (fission sex) then evolved as a host strategy to uncouple (and thereby emasculate) the acquired symbiont genomes.[26]
5) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
6) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
7) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
8) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
9) This shows that you do not have an understanding of the word theory. Evolution has been proven countless times. If it was unproven, it would not qualify to be a scientific theory, it would be a hypothesis. Here are some other theories, as examples:
Gravitational Theory
The Theory of Relativity
Heliocentric Theory (stating the Earth goes round the Sun)
Germ Theory (stating that diseases are caused by micro-organisms)
Atomic Theory (stating that things are made of atoms)
10) Irrelevant. Not part of the Theory of Evolution
Most of your questions are not even closely related to evolution. Evolution does not deal with anything to do with the origin of the universe, or stars, elements, or how life arose from non-life. Evolution explains the diversity of life. While you are technically correct in saying evolution does not explain most of these things, you could equally say ‘Evolution does not explain why you shouldn’t put metal in the microwave’ or ‘The Big Bang Theory doesn’t explain why plastic does not taste delicious’ and have just as much of a point.
June 26th, 2011 at 10:12
Do you think that scientific theories are clearly defined or sort vaguely defined? Obviously if they weren’t clearly defined they would be of little use. Evolution is clearly defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. It’s nothing more than that. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Now lets consider your questions. Only #5 is related to evolution and the answer is both occurred simultaneously. This is expected, according to the theory, as only populations evolve.
Now that you’ve been informed you’ll look really silly if you keep asking these questions.
June 26th, 2011 at 10:13
When I said #5 I meant #4. My apologies.
June 26th, 2011 at 10:12
None of these questions are even about evolution. Most are about cosmology.
June 26th, 2011 at 11:10
1. Has nothing to do with evolution.
2. Has nothing to do with evolution.
3. Has nothing to do with evolution.
4. Asexuality, then evolution into organisms that are both male and female, later splitting into 2 distinct genders.
5. Has nothing to do with evolution.
6. Has nothing to do with evolution.
7. Has nothing to do with evolution.
8. Has nothing to do with evolution.
9. Look up the definition of a scientific theory. Otherwise, the same reason the Theory of Gravitation is considered fact.
10. Has nothing to do with evolution.
June 26th, 2011 at 13:08
Only question 4 is related to evolution. I’m not a biologist, so I can’t answer that. The rest of them…I guess you are trying to pull the rug out from under the theory of evolution? Thing is, even if you proved that the universe and the first life forms were created by a god, that wouldn’t disprove evolution. Many people do posit that the universe and the first life were created by god, and then he let evolution do it’s thing.
So….Try harder, I guess. I would also like to hear you acknowledge that 9 of your 10 questions are not related to the field you are questioning.
June 26th, 2011 at 13:20
The problem with this article is that the author holds no knowledge of evolution and how it works. They do not know the definition of the word theory (why else would they think that it is a point against evolution and claim it is unproven?), let alone what evolution is actually about. Not only that but the majority of the questions aren’t even about evolution at all but completely different subjects entirely.
The only questions which come close are 4 and 9. Number 4 is easily addressed by pointing out that life began with asexual beings (such beings still exist today) and asking which came first, the male or female is like pointing at a rainbow and asking the exact point where red turns into orange. It is not a clear and rough path where new species are obviously defined but gradual. After all, as a child grows from a newborn to a full adult at the age of 20, at the age of 10 they don’t have the head, arms and torso of a full grown 20 year old and the wait and legs of a newborn baby. They gradually develop.
As for question 9, it shows a fundamental ignorance either intentional or not of the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. Just like laws in science are not the same as laws which you can be arrested for breaking, theories are not just some idea someone came up with yet never proven. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has withstood harsh and critical tests by peer review and found to hold no fault. A theory in science is an explanation for a series of facts, not a fact itself just like a book is not a character but a story of a collection of characters. A theory in science certainly is not just some half baked idea that someone came up with.
—
As a request to the author, since we all would rather not see someone bumble around like a fool and rather understand the subject that they are discussing, I ask you that you give up this act of trying to gather questions to stump experts on a subject you do not understand and instead make an attempt to understand the subject.
Instead of claiming evolution is wrong and then listening to denialists for what you want to hear, admit that you do not understand evolution and begin learning about what evolution is and how it works from the experts that understand it. After all, there is nothing wrong with learning what the people who actually study and promote the subject have to say.
If you do not do this you are merely cheating yourself out of education and choosing the life of comfortable lies in favour of admitting that you are still learning, just like all of us.
Remember, stop trying to debunk a subject you do not understand, start trying to understand the subject.
June 26th, 2011 at 15:17
1. Theists claim God has always existed. I claim Time, Space, Matter, and Energy have always existed. Of course, Time and Space are related, and so are Matter and Energy (Minkowski spacetime and E=mc^2).
2. Again, always existed. People have no trouble saying God has always existed, but they have trouble saying materials have always existed? This just never made sense to me.
3. Life cannot appear spontaneously means you can’t get something from nothing. You CAN get something from something else. See 2.; something else has always existed.
4. Evolution can be a nasty process full of mutations and ugly intermediate steps. The answer to this question is probably quite nasty.
5. Volcano explodes. Tree gets petrified from lava. Sediment occurs. Why was this a question to begin with?
6. Hydrogen. And before that, protons and electrons. And before that, quarks, And when we get to the most basic quanta, it will have always existed.
7. Matter in space is gravitationally attracted to itself. Huge moment of inertia and slight rotation eventually collapses into a star. These questions are pretty pointless. Evolution does not attempt to explain this. The belief in God does not explain many things.
8. Physicists are working on it. If you want to put this one on God until humans come up with something better, feel free. Just so you know, though, it’s a little difficult to look back 14 billion years. I know I know, we physicists are supposed to be smart.
9. I ask why you do the same for the belief in God. And to answer the question, it gets us a little further than sitting around and praying.
10. I’m not going to recount the details here. You research that yourself. And once you’ve done that, ask yourself what specific details God provides. Then choose between “God did it!” and an extremely well-explained detailed description, which, admittedly, is not 100% complete. If you still want to choose the first one, please do; the time you spend praying couldn’t be spent any better if you can’t figure out the right choice.