Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for that comment. It inspired me to post a snippet of a similar conversation I had months ago, with your links and some others added:

Is it right, however, to lump together those who are skeptical of evolution with those who are skeptical of AGW, particularly CO2-driven AGW ?

Creationists confuse religious faith with falsifiable science. Among the general public, climate-change contrarians (and your average Greenpeace/PETA loony) confuse political affiliation with falsifiable science. In both cases, scientists are much less likely to agree with either claim, and that likelihood decreases with increasing relevance of the scientist's field. That's probably why both groups tend to accuse the scientific community of conspiracy and/or widespread incompetence.

At my blog, the following statement is both legible and has popup titles describing why that link was chosen. Here it is without the links first: "And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational levels."

And, in my experience there's a significant overlap between the two groups. Most of their arguments seem to be at similar intellectual and educational lev els.

Check this out. You can read the whole book online for free. www.creationscience.com Even if the hydroplate theory isn't correct, it's very interesting. Beyond that, there's so much in the book that's really hard to dismiss easily. If you're intellectually honest, this is worth your while. Enjoy!

Have you actually done any research on this? Because I have.

http://www.creationscience.com/

Just a start.

The 1999 Ford Taurus gets it's features from nature's platypus design. Thick in the middle, tapered on both ends, and (4) five spoke rubbery components for motion.

Click for yourself:

Platypus

1999 Ford Taurus

I have to say that I've seen a lot of discussion about the Grand Canyon's formation, and it never begins with "God made it" but if the discussion goes long enough, that's what the young earther eventually has to retreat to. It's never "God made it directly using magic." It always starts as a flood, then appeals to a bizarre hydrodynamic sorting process, then some weird physics to explain radiometric results. Usually when it comes to hydrodynamic sorting or obvious questions like where all the water came from / went is when tiny miracles start to creep in. If I could actually see an argument that didn't resort to miracles and actually passed the laugh test, I'd be pretty impressed.

As for the scientific community rejecting arguments due to the sources, you're not too far off. The arguments aren't simply rejected, though. There's usually a point by point refutation available. They are, however, much more skeptical of sources like AiG and ICR because those sources have along history of torturing data and coming up with bogus conclusions. Like it or not, there's still a credibility issue if you cry wolf enough. Your arguments could be good, but if you have a long history of doing thoroughly dishonest things, it's going to be pretty hard to convince the scientific community that you're on the up and up.

Just to save the mockers some time, I'll mention that I fully realize that the hydroplate theory:

• has critics
• even if correct, doesn't prove God exists or that evolution is false

I would like to know what evidence there is that there ever was a magnetic reversal. Check out this page from a book by Walt Brown. There is a section about this a little over halfway down the page under the section called Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor. I think this is where people come up with the notion of past reversals, but there is no true evidence.

"Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand,
that evolution is documented by geology and, on the other
hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a
circular argument?" Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!"
BioScience, Vol. 28, November 1978, p. 714. _In the
Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood_
(7th Edition) by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/on-
linebook/ReferencesandNotes65.html

The article is from pages 712 to 715.

This quote takes the cake for dishonesty. How this one is out
of context is fairly unique though.

Larry Azar at the time of this article was with the Philosopy
Department of Iona College in New Rochell, New York (
http://www.iona.edu/about/description.htm ). He describes
himself as a "philosophy teacher" and in the context of
biology he calls himself an "outsider."

His question, "Isn't this a circular argument?" is not a
rhetorical question, it is a real one. Basically this article
is a philosopher who is _not_ an expert in the sciences asking
a series of questions about biology including evolution in
hopes that biologists would respond and clarify the issues for
him. And they did exactly that. There were a number of letters
to the editor on pages 208 to 209 of the April 1979 issue
which also had an article in response called "Evolution: Help
for the Confused" by Bradley T. Scheer on pages 238 to 241. In
that article the quoted question was answered.

The young-earthers might as well quote questions asked by
students to instructors in freshman classes as "evidence" for
young-earth dogma.

>This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming you can use radiocarbon dating on anything but recent fossils. Geological layers are dated by a variety of means, including radiological dating of isotopes much longer-lived than carbon-14.

Can you (or anyone) provide a couple of examples of a fossil that was dated by any other means than its position in a geological layers? The creation web sites state a couple of quotes from secular sources stating that other dating methods are not generally used creationscience.
Evolution sites claim they are talkorgins but no examples are presented.

Well, I *am* a scientist, so I'm waiting for these points.

I don't know, maybe you think I sound stupid, but I just sometimes feel like maybe there is something else out there. And don't get me wrong, I'm an extremely logically-minded person.

Feelings aren't proof. You can "feel" whatever you want - that's not logic, reason, or science.

The amount of evidence I found just on this one site http://creationscience.com/ actually surprised me.

Gee, considering the name, I'm guessing they're a little biased. I'm guessing you're young, so I'll be gentle - question these guys more and learn some biology. There's some problems with sites like these:

1) Notice they don't actually have a theory - they simply attack evolution. Ask what *constructive* proof exists to prove whatever it is their theory is. They don't get to be right simply by pointing out things scientists don't understand about evolution. And anyway, why is the Christian creation myth the correct one? Why not the Norse one, which suggests that a cow licked a salt block into the shape of a man? Heck, there actually is some evidence for that - our bodies are filled with salt!

2) They focus their attacks very narrowly. It's a bit of a forest vs. trees argument - they confuse laymen with arguments over individual fossil records or techniques. What they don't understand (or want you to understand) is that they have to disprove an enormous amount of evidence to be correct.

3) Much of their biology is in fact wrong. This site isn't done by scientists.

4) I don't usually make credibility-based arguments, but for the most part, scientists question things and make good deductions. You will not find a single scientist who isn't strongly religious who believes evolution is wrong.

That's exactly what I'm saying, though. I've actually done my homework on this one. I'm extremely interested in science and I've researched both sides of this. I have to admit that creation science does have it's points that seem to support it more than evolution. I'm not arrogant enough to claim there's not a God, because if he's as big and powerful as they say he is, who am I to go talking about him? I don't know, maybe you think I sound stupid, but I just sometimes feel like maybe there is something else out there. And don't get me wrong, I'm an extremely logically-minded person. The amount of evidence I found just on this one site http://creationscience.com/ actually surprised me.

Hi Copid! I am an armchair scientist. Just a computer tech-support guy who has been force-fed an evolutionary view since childhood in my schools, and in my entertainment. Stopped going to Imax, stopped listening to the typical "100 million years ago this fish needed protection from its enemies, so it evolved poisonuos spikes and camoflage..." voice overs in many "science documentaries" and started thinking a little more for myself. Now I just say BS. It is almost like the dark ages when the "church" held services in all Latin and said to the common folk that the words of scripture are to lofty for you to try and understand so we will interpret it for you. The same is coming from the general sceintific community. "we have bigger words and know more than you so stop trying to discover on your own, and just know that we are correct." The problem is I met God and got saved and that has screwed me up for this world. I am no longer able to see things the way the tv tells me I should. Sorry but I think there is a shift occurring towards an ID worldview. You look at some layers of rock and say, the naturalistic geologists have written textbooks that prove the truth of how theses layers are formed. I look at the same rock and say wow, thats just like the mini-grand canyon that was formed in hours after Mt. St. Helens erupted ... layers and buried animals and all. "In science class, we teach established scientific results and the scientific method. ID is not an established scientific result and it completely discards the scientific method." I would say to you that missing links (most of which have been completely debunct) are not the scientific method but art and philisophy. The chain of man to monkey, beautiful artwork, not science... or should I say, a theory not a fact like it is presented in our secular classrooms. "The geological column clearly shows a time when there were dinosaurs but there were no rabbits. We know that the dinosaurs died somewhere along the lines. Where did the rabbits come from, though?" Are you sure the dinosaurs are all dead? what makes you say that? I remember hearing about the apparent plesiosaur pulled in the fishing nets of a Japanese fishing boat in 1977 http://www.creationscience.com/FAQ25.html (sorry its the only pic I could find at the moment) there are also the world wide sightings and legends across the globe of giant creatures that man would hunt and kill. Some of these stories are very recent in the Congo and so forth. You say the geological column clearly shows a "time" but I say, "BS". The geological column itself is very suspect and has a LOT of hypothesis and theory behind it that many creation scientists and others disagree with. There are layers of rock and sediment with fossils in them is agreed and is seen clearly, but how they got there and when is hotly debated. As I said, I am not a scientist, just a skeptic. There are many more things that could be said here, but I gots to get to sleep its 4am ... yikes. gnite y'all

The AiG website includes this page of links to articles about it. Walt Brown proposes this hypothesis for how it was triggered and all its effects.

Sorry for posting this late, but here's one very good source for info (there's more, but I need to go over those later). The site isn't the best, but works. It's here.

So if you want a challenge, read the material. But if you simply just dismiss the material and not read it, then I'll know how open your mind is ;)

-eventhorizon

>That is quite a lot of fields you have studied. I'd like to hear more. I don't know much about these things but I did study a bit of geology and biology. Please tell me more about plate tectonics. It sounds interesting. I haven't looked at mathematical statistics lately. Perhaps you could explain these figures you quoted.

Well since I'm criticising evolution, I need to study enormous amounts of information from everywhere, including from evolutionary theory itself, and also the arguments against it, alternative theories, etc. In this post I made here, I go a little in-depth with the plate tectonics issue, since some guy was making some snide remarks on that topic. With me, I'm not trying to propose some other viewpoint besides evolution; I'm criticising evolution's vast flaws, which is basically forbidden in society. Some of the material on the plates issue comes from books I have relating to it, and a lot of it comes from the creator of the Hydroplate theory, an alternative theory to plate tectonics which is becoming more accepted in the scientific community due to the fact that it explains what plate tectonics can't (a lot). Since I've got books here, I found a link here with similar information (site's not that great, but works).

-eventhorizon

I have two things for you to think about that may possibly allow you to understand why Hell exists. First of all the Bible makes it very clear why we were created, God got bored and wanted toys. He also realized that boring toys that do whatever they are told are boring and he wanted to be loved, think a wind up toy with a button that you push saying I love you every time. Now making toys that have a mind of their own has a consequence, they must be given choice, and this choice means they may make a poor choice (look at real life if you don't believe me). Now free choice is a very important thing and quite frankly our lives would suck without that freedom of choice. But it also has a lot of consequences like Hell. So my point is that God cares for us, but he wants to give us freedom of choice, and he can't have both. Now for another food of thought on another line, what if God is not in control apart from outside this universe. We are never told whether or not God has rules to abide by in his own little universe, but I think he may (though these rules are obviously much broader than ours). What if God has no direct control of his angels, which I believe he may not as look at the fall of Satan. And what if the rules of the game are that you can try and win souls, but you cant steal one anothers souls. Now the first argument is clearly true and can be backed up by numerous verses and also makes sense you can't have humans who choose to love you and then only give them the choice to love you. The second one is off the wall and I always wondered it myself but I have no reason to believe it other then a thought I came up with. Now back to the topic I also think that this article doesn't prove macro evolution, which never has been proven. Micro evolution has time and time again. Most creationist will agree that this butterfly "anomaly" when the butterfly becomes a bird or a new species now you have something. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces.html

when these people can/will run over our consitiution like this. Is this not the country founded on the principle of the protection from the "trynany or the majority"?

Here, have a look at some of their (creation science) web sites:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

You simple can NOT argue with them. Here is an excerpt from the first site I listed:
Do You Believe that Evolution is True? If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.

Lets disect this. "Natural" - okay, I can buy that. "Undirected" - absolutely NOT! They are right, using this terminology I can not defend evolution. However, evolution IS directed. Thus, the whole point of natural selection. That is, a particular allele is selected for dependent on its fitness for a specific environment.

So, where does this get us? There is simply no argument to be had. They will continually push for the abolishment of evolution until they get it.

Now for what should REALLY scare you. Listen to Christian talk radio every now and then. What is coming down the pike is scarier than what they are doing "publicly" now. The new thing seems to be to "push" women back into their rightful places. That is, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Women should not have careers, but rather they should be "life-givers" and subordinate/respectful of their benevolent husbands. You think I am kidding??? I CHALLENEGE you to listen to the radio. Here, I'll save you some time:
http://www.reviveourhearts.com/nancy/

I prefer that my wife has a brain/career. We'll have kids when we're good and ready.

Oh f*$%, here goes: I, for one, welcome our new FUNDAMENTALIST christian overlords...

I'ld like to have a creationist explanation about the magnetic patterns in the ocean crust, other than God did it to make us think.

As a matter of fact, there is: Hydroplate theory. Hydroplate theory expains every geological feature you could think of, and some you wouldn't.
Information of Hydroplate theory: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.h tml

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

Regardless of how "favorable" this supposed conditions are, the fact remains - Life does not come from non-life, and never has. Its a law of science, and something that evolutionists continue to struggle mightily to overcome. For those with questions regarding Creation Science, I would recommend http://www.creationscience.com/ I would also recommend Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith" for the legions of cynical /. visitors I seem to see - there ARE legitimate, real reasons to hold Christianity as a true and personal belief system. Besides, why exactly is it that you believe in no God (for you atheists). Its ultimately a step of faith, just as is Christianity. What verifiable and objective facts can we see to verify atheism? -jajawarrior

Well, your heart and mind is soiled, as is the whole of you.

I am not bothering you. You are bothering me. You replied unsolicited to my reply to "creysoft".

Onto your meat:

> Are you claiming that the only thing that can knock trees down en masse is a flood?
No.

> Firestorms and such can't do that, I guess.
They can, but there's no record of a worldwide firestorm 5000 years ago.

There are records of a worldwide flood though.

> A sufficiently-sized and long meteor shower can do that job just fine.
Yes, but there's no record of a worldwide meteor shower 5000 years ago.

There are records of a worldwide flood though.

> That would also account for the thorium (etc) layer supposedly laid down by the great flood.
So 5000 years ago, the entire earth was blasted with huge amounts of metorites that killed all the trees and laid down a worldwide layer of their distinctive metals?

The data fits a worldwide flood better.

> I guess I am as gifted at speculation as hard creationists!
You are the unchallenged champion.

> Maybe I should start my own religion.
> I'll call it... Martinetics! (I would call it Martinizing, but that's already taken.)

As long as it isn't drinkypooism.

The whole practice of carbon dating shouldn't really be used anyway as it is flawed to begin with.

Yes.

The land back then was also one supercontinent, as the Bible implies.

From here

The Great Dying occurred on the boundary between the Permian and Triassic periods when all land was concentrated in one supercontinent, known as Pangaea.

"The marine extinction and the land extinction appear to be simultaneous, based on the geochemical evidence we found," said Peter Ward, the palaeontologist who led the research.

"Animals and plants both on land and in the sea were dying at the same time and apparently from the same causes - too much heat and too little oxygen."

This site has a good explain of how this happened: Hydroplate theory

You may also want to check out creationscience.com

Funny I found many hits on google from geologists who do not dispute this. Like this one Also they have found fossils several thousand feet up in the mountains, like you said.

I think the fact that the site you linked to is called "CreationScience.com" speaks for itself.

OK here is a spin on this. If you believe in evolutionism rather than creationalism, how does the first creature to crawl out of the pond scum get pregnant and spawn more?

First, evolution doesn't concern itself with the origin of life, only the change and speciation thereof. Second, have you ever heard of asexual reproduction?

1) The World is Flat (see Jobe and the International Flat-Earth Society) What the...?

2) But for Adam, no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and brought her to the man. So where does it say the woman has a different # of ribs? This is a common mistake made by people who go by hearsay.

3) The Earth was completely covered with water (something every geologist disputes) Funny I found many hits on google from geologists who do not dispute this. Like this one Also they have found fossils several thousand feet up in the mountains, like you said.

4) A women reproduced asexually (a feat claimed by a number of pregnant teenagers) OK here is a spin on this. If you believe in evolutionism rather than creationalism, how does the first creature to crawl out of the pond scum get pregnant and spawn more? By this argument, it can't happen that way either.

Check out the Hydroplate Theory -- a great SciFi movie, just waiting to be made! Or, at least, one better than "The Core."

> Oh, my mistake, I must have read the poorly translated bible.
Your real mistake is assuming you know more that you do. Reading books filled with dubious (and contradictory) theories, poor scholarship and wishful thinking don't make one wise.

> If you were to take the Egyptean religion (the one used by the people,
> not the leaders) as of about 100 bc and mix it with Judaism,
> the results would be very much like pre-Roman Christianity.
And I must believe, O hallowed authority, because... ?

> Thats very clear to me and there are many of examples in the bible
> where Jesus introduced concepts that were common in the nearby areas
> that were not common in Judaism. The best example might be dealing
> with sick people.
?
? Miracles were not very common then, neither are they common now.

> As far as other ledgedens. Not all groups in the world do remember
> a global flood however all groups that live near major rivers
> do have flood stories. Most of which have been corrupted by
> well meaning missionaries.
Um, global floods, as in floods that kill all mankind? Like the more than 2500 year Vedic story from Hinduism. I used to be Hindu. Let me tell you my people are no pushovers, and certainly not given to rewriting all copies of (what they see as) scriptures on the say so of a few missionaries. And then, there are the other people groups listed here?

> Also the bird release thing is nonsense considering one
> was a 6 day flood vs a 40 day flood. If you want to check
> out what happens when ground is underwater for 40 days, look
> into the Mississippi flood of 93 since some areas were underwater
> for that length of time.

What! 40 days?!!? It lasted more than a year --
the most precisely recorded year of the Bible. It took months for the waters to recede as written in the Bible. Genesis chapter 7 says the rain started on the "second month, in the seventeenth day of the month". Genesis chapter 8 shows the waters finally receding: "And the waters were going and falling until the tenth month. In the tenth month, in the first of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen" (the mountains being pretty high - the Ararat ranges) (emphasis added).

Does this sound like a global flood or not?

Also, the order of release of birds makes sense. A dove is a clean bird, not a carrion feeder like the raven that is happy to feed on floating carcasses. Once the dove found a place to rest, Noah was sure it is safe for him to go out.

You might want to look up the Hydroplate Theory as one possible alternative (granted this link is from a creationist website I found on google, but the science is at least plausible, as opposed to the nonsense found here)

Oh and about your sig - check out this book if you don't mind reading something contrary to your assumptions.

Fundamentalists do not adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, as they claim.

The Biblical record of the Flood is not treated as 100% literal, even by Creationists. Since a completely literal interpretation is not possible, we must understand the account of the Flood from the view point of Noah, who lived around 5000 BC and had a more limited conception of the Earth than modern Science.

Fundamentalists do not adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, as they claim.

The Biblical record of the Flood is not treated as 100% literal, even by Creationists. Since a completely literal interpretation is not possible, we must understand the account of the Flood from the view point of Noah, who lived around 5000 BC and had a more limited conception of the Earth than modern Science.

The difference is that when Science learns that it's wrong, it admits it and moves on to try to learn more about the universe.

Which is why it took over fifty years to recognize Piltdown was a fraud? Or why an extinct pig's tooth was ballooned into an entire human population before exposed as wrong? Or why DuBois hid the skulls that exposed his "Java man" to be bogus for decades beneath the floorboards in his house? Science is no more honorable than the individuals in it, and there are shysters and hucksters in all branches of humanity. Sadly, that means there are frauds in science, and will be for as long as there are people in the field.

When the Bible is shown to be wrong, people hold to it doggedly, making excuse after excuse until they're left in exile on the lunatic fringe defending the utterly laughable (Fundamentalists), or they must dilute the "facts" in the Bible so much that what they're left with is practically useless as a religious text describing an almighty Creator(Catholics).

I thank you for making a distinction between Christians and Roman Catholics, that discernment is rare. However you are incorrect that fundamentalists are on the lunatic fringe. There are many respected scientists in the mainstream who are fundamentalists. Many have to hide that however due to persecution and other attitudes of closed-minded individuals.

The rest of your claims are just plain wrong:

No, a rabbit does not chew its cud.

Rabbits do chew their cud, in that they eat again what has passed through their system, by practicing refection. They do eat their food again. Note the claim was not that they have multichambered stomachs, merely that they eat again what they have already eaten. I don't know about you, but a caprophagic animal is a pretty good definition of an unclean animal that I would certainly not find appealing to consume.

Jesus lies quite egregiously to try to save his own skin in the Bible when questioned by the Pharisies.

Accusations such as this without detail are not worth answering. Provide detail and you will be answered.

The Earth is not flat with four corners.

Who said it was flat with four corners? That's your misinterpretation, ignoring literary constructions. The phrase "to the corners of the earth" is still in use today as an expression.

No evidence exists for a worldwide flood between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago, and even less evidence exists that we and all land/air animals came from creatures that rode an ark during that time

Mitochondrial Eve has been shown in secular literature (ever heard of the magazine "Science") to have lived ~6000 years ago. Evidence of the flood here.

The Egyptians, who were meticulous record keepers, made no mention of massive Jewish slave use that was ripped away from them by the coming of Moses. Further, if the Nile had been turned to blood, it would have caused untold destruction upon the entire region that depended upon it for their very survival. We would have learned about it by now, most likely.

Of course the Egyptians removed records of the slave Hebrew population, they are well documented revisionists. Note they don't mention losing battles either; no wonder they wiped out references to the crushing defeat they were handed. Same with the Nile, that large a defeat they would wipe out. And it was not blood for ages as you seem to imply.

Jesus describes his "kingdom" in some detail then goes on to say how not even all of his Apostles would be dead by the time he returned to his glory for all to see... I think it's safe to say that prophecy was full of crap.

You again display your great talent for missing the point. It's creationists who offer the exponential population growth argument, not me.

I understood what you were saying. Someone said that if light had decreased at a constant rate we'd beat it on our push bikes. I merely pointed out that we have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what the decrease rate is, and it could be exponential. I have no idea what it actually is, but I was pointing out that fact to the original poster. I wasn't saying it IS exponential, I was just giving that as one of many numerous explanations. His idiotic comments were an issue for both evolutionists and creationists if a decrease in the speed of light is true.

Should I be so lucky!

See above, I'm a sucker.

Actually, all we have is your assertion that the article on talkorigins.org is out of date. The fact is that it is still the view held by scientists, however much creationist Web sites may rant against it.

Incorrect. The original article was found on the internet and was truely published as the footnote on the website said. It was published in 1997, whereas all your references were 1996 or earlier. This is a problem, because the new discovery occurred in 1997. The article was written by an evolutionist, so as to avoid accusations of bias or some other unfair accusal.

Who should I believe? You or the scientists, you or the scientists... tough decision, after seeing your brilliant performances on Slashdot.

You might have trouble believing the scientists.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.

False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.

What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR> Selection of advantagous traits.

No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.

Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?

What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.

2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one? ;) They are complicated.

You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.

Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.

How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.

SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.

This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.

For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms

Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)

Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.

Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.

How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.

Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.

I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life". http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l

Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.

What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.

The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.

If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?

Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.

Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated. http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html

Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.

How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.

Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.

Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?

Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory? http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/

Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.

I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.

Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.

As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.

False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.

What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR> Selection of advantagous traits.

No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.

Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?

What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.

2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one? ;) They are complicated.

You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.

Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.

How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.

SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.

This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.

For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms

Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)

Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.

Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.

How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.

Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.

I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life". http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l

Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.

What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.

The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.

If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?

Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.

Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated. http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html

Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.

How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.

Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.

Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?

Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory? http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/

Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.

I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.

Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.

As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.

False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.

What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR> Selection of advantagous traits.

No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.

Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?

What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.

2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one? ;) They are complicated.

You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.

Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.

How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.

SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.

This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.

For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms

Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)

Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.

Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.

How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.

Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.

I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life". http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l

Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.

What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.

The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.

If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?

Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.

Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated. http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html

Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.

How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.

Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.

Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?

Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory? http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/

Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.

I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.

Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.

As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.

False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.

What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR> Selection of advantagous traits.

No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.

Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?

What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.

2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one? ;) They are complicated.

You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.

Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.

How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.

SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.

This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.

For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms

Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)

Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.

Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.

How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.

Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.

I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life". http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l

Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.

What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.

The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.

If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?

Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.

Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated. http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html

Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.

How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.

Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.

Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?

Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory? http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/

Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.

I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.

Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.

As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed?
Galapagos island by Charles Darwin. Read his "The Orgin of the Species" see the finches.

False. The evolution that Charles Darwin observed in the Galapagos was a form of microevolution, perfectly consistent with the creationist model. A lot of the criticism of the creationist model springs from a misunderstanding of it I think.
Microevolution: variation within a species from already present genetic information. Observable, verifiable.
Macroevolution: variation within a species through genetic mutation that eventually leads to a new species. Not observable, unverifiable. Processes today seem to indicate this is impossible.
Now if you had followed the link for each of the summary 20 questions, this would have been explained for you. These 20 questions are a summary, not the argument themselves. You are meant to follow the links to discover, in depth, what the problem is. Consider a parent bear who has the genes for brown fur and white fur. This code was passed on for a number of generations - as long as the bears have been around. The child inherits white fur from both parents. Natural selection makes this child more likely to survive in a snowy environment than any of it's brothers with brown fur. It was not a genetic mutation that gave this white fur - it was simply inherited from it's parents. This is microevolution which a creationist model predicts. What evolution predicts is that new mutations will occur often enough to bring useful changes - skin color changes, different beak sizes, etc, without a negative change travelling hand in hand. Unfortunately, for evolution, that is not what observation shows. I hope you understood. Either way read the link that was with the question please. You have not answered the problem posed by Walt Brown.

What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs?BR> Selection of advantagous traits.

No, you answered what happens after the traits are created. The question is what mechanism produces the new complexity, the new traits. Again, read the actual in-depth discussion, not just the summary.

If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ, because without a vital organ, the organism is dead by definition?
An organ does not have to be a vital organ to start out with. It can be an intresting oddity before it became important. Take a look at the heart. Before the heart there was an open circulatory system, the organs would just float within a fluid and recieve the nutriants as fast as they can defuse. When through chance something started moving the fluid that creature would be better able to survive, maybe more efficent. Using the theory of evolution, its decendants would be better able to survive and would have a competative advantage.

Hang on. You say that there was no heart, then suddenly an organ appears that "started moving the fluid" - when the question is clearly about the period between not having the organ, and then the organ working. There is a period where the organ is totally useless, performs no function. Indeed, such an organ would be a hindrance and probably selected against.

If a reptile's leg evolved into a bird's wing, wouldn't it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing?
Why can it not be a bad wing, assisting in jumping before its a good wing?

What mutation could possibly turn a leg from being a good leg into a bad wing in one single step? The problem is evolution takes steps, and all the steps transitioning from a good leg to a bad wing make it useless, and natural selection would select against such a mutation. And not just nature, but also mates. How many humans today would be attracted to someone whose leg looked a bit like a wing, but did nothing useful? If you have the chance, read the comic on the top of page 226 of The Dilbert Future. So again you are skipping steps. The problem was about the transition from a good leg to a bad wing, you missed that step and skipped strait to a bad wing.

2. Do you realize how complex living things are?
What kind of question is this? A rhetorical one? ;) They are complicated.

You ignored the question in the link that the comment was related to - a question of probabilities. Again, by only reading the summary you missed the question.

How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes?
Using the brain as an example, c. elegans a nematode worm has 302 neurons which govern its behaviour. It can avoid adverse conditions, engage in sexual reproductions etc. An amoba can do the same thing, with less exactly.

Thanks for the example, but how is that relevant? You point to already existing creatures which a creationist believes were created at the beginning. This isn't an answer at all. So to repeat the question - How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? The question is not an example of a transitional creature, but a question of the process of transitioning from a useless bulb into a working eye.

How could a bacterial motor evolve?
Molecular pumps are rather simple structures. A collection of them form a bacterial motor. Assumably a random collection of gradient pumps could self assemble and be reproducable which would all the single cell bacteria to move.

SIMPLE??!?!? Assumably they randomly collect to form a pump? Rubbish! You haven't explained anything, just given a fairy tale of what could have happened. And a poor answer at that. How would the pumps self assemble? How would they reproduce? How would they join together to form a motor? How do these motors form in the first place? Remember that they are useless for a number of steps until they work. Answer the question - How could a bacterial motor evolve? - and read the followup for the summary for an indepth description of the problem.

3. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions.
Stephan Gould and Niles Eldredge had a punctuated evolution theory which seems to fit the bill. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Please refer to these references for a quick discussion of the problems with this theory. Basically, while it fits the fossil record, it doesn't fit the way genetics works. Evolutionary jumps simply don't and can't happen. That's what the reference I have just given talks about.

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches?
At the trunk are prokaryotes and virii. From there there is the eukaryotes and branching from there are the 3-7 kingdoms.

This question is asking where the trunk is in the fossil record. As quoted from the in-depth discussion and not the summary question:
The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest sedimentary layers of Cambrian rock), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified,a and dispersed--worldwide. - and more.

For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?
Nematode worms

Nematode worms are alive today. Do you have evidence that they were the ansestor of insects in the fossil record?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man.
The first cell was a myocel, lipid bi-layer. It collected the "stuff of life together". For the second part why are we talking about miracles if this is a scientific discussion? =)

Again, in reading the summary only you missed the core of the question. The answer is more than just a story - it's a question of being literally possible or not. The in-depth discussion has more details.

Miracle can mean remarkable event. Some things do happen that defy all odds. Walt Brown was describing that the step to get first living cell is even more impossible than the chance of getting a bacteria to evolve to a man.

How could that first cell reproduce?
They probably didn't. It probably took billions of years before something came around that did. The other cells simply ceased to be after the enviornment ripped them apart. It was only when they started to reproduce that life as we think about it really get going.

Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution.
Why would it be a terrible problem? The first atmosphere probably was anaerobic (no oxygen), the first photosynthsis started pumping oxygen into the air but in stagnent pools that would not have mattered. There still exists anaerobic enviornments to this day. The first cell that could use this would gain much more energy 36 ATP vs 4 ATP from a glucose molecule. There is a significant advantage to get more energy from a unit of food.

Hmm, the in-depth description of the question doesn't seem to answer why the oxygen question is important. I have read it elsewhere on the website, I'll see if I can find it.... oh yes, it's here. This describes why the question of oxygen is important.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Off the top of my head, snowflakes. They form an intricate crystaline structure which can be considered information. And all it takes is some cold and water.

I'm pretty sure that by "a strictly natural process that creates information" he was referring to genetic information, not just anything. Otherwise you could argue that destruction of a building creates information - the question becomes meaningless. You see this is one of the problems with genetic mutations - they only change already present information. It mutates a gene from being one thing to another. Processes that produce new information - like what would have been necessary for evolution - are unknown. Mutations bring about a disadvantage because of a loss of information. You gain one trait and lose another, and the new one is 99.99% harmful/harmless. Beneficial mutations are almost unknown. Check here and here for the problem of information.

What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
What reason could it not? Anyway, the Miller/Urey experiment demonstrated that amino acids "The building blocks of life" could be formed from "non-life". http://www2.bc.edu/~strother/GE_146/lectures/9.htm l

Amino acids may naturally form, but proteins do not. Proteins tend to break down into amino acids, not the other way around. If you read the in-depth description and not just the summary, it talks about this. So answer the problems given and not just the summary.

What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
So? What about the 10000 books of information encoded on a DVD? A snow bank can contain huge complexity and most people would not argue that an "intellegent creator" made that.

The question is related to how this information came about. See the problems above and the links I posted, describing the problem with obtaining new information. A DVD has information intelligently designed, and snowflakes are pretty but they do not perform any mechanical function from their amazing shapes.

If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
Yes, by definition if there was an intelligent signal it would come from an intellegent source. A complex signal does not require an intellegent source. There is a difference. DNA is undoubtably complex but is it an intellegent signal? Arguing that it is an intellegent signal because it came from an intellegent source, and that there is an intellegent source because of DNA's intellegent signal seems rather circular doesn't it?

Not at all. DNA is not just complex, it is completely meaningful. It all performs a function that is necessary for our existence. And this is true of information present in the whole spectrum of life. This meaningful information could not have come about by chance (see above comments). It seems logical to conclude that it had an intelligent origin. Imagine if we discovered a spherical device the size of a baseball. It could do an amazing number of things - change it's shape, endure amazing temperatures, communicate through vibrations with language. Inside it we discovered wires tinier than our scientists have been able to miniaturize, and circuitry of amazing complexity. We would conclude that this device was created by some race far in advance of our own. Life is the same - life is presumably the greatest things that could ever be created. The most intelligently designed, integral working machines in the universe. Infinitely more amazing than the example device I mentioned. Yet this complexity is the reason why you reject it as being created? Anyway, this question is perhaps more subjective than the other comments, and is only a small part of the entire question 6.

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
Actually RNA. RNA can catalyze its own replication. DNA is more stable and came later.

Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve?
E. Coli a simple bacteria reproduces primarly asexual reproduction. They can hook up and form a bridge of cytoplasm and swap DNA. This doesn't seem very complicated. http://www.is.irl.cri.nz/level3/bacteria.html

Again, quoting a living creature today that can already perform a certain function is no answer. How could sexual reproduction evolve? You haven't answered the question, and it is very complex. And even more complex to ever evolve. Check the in-depth information. That is where the actual problem is described. Again you have only answered the summary without understanding the problem.

How could immune systems evolve?
Single cells can either gain resources from the static enviornment, or they can go after other cells by engulfing them. The other cells obviously do not want this to happen and have developed several methods of thwarting this including using their lysosomes to "counter attack" an immune system is just this on a grander scale.

Yet again, check the in-depth information. A story of what might have happened without describing how or why is no answer.

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human?
Arrowhead shapes can be formed by natural phenomon such as glaciers. It may not take intellegence to make a human (one night of reckless abandon will do that) but to do it from scratch would probably take a long time.

Take an object today, let's say the arrowhead, forged smooth and careful, with a hole for the shaft. Now imagine the chances of that naturally occurring. Remember also that evolution is not genetically possible. It simply can't happen, as is introduced above in various links and questions. Again read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least eight moons revolve backwards?
Why shouldn't they spin another way, why is one way backwards? Though I kinda didn't want to use "god", what purpose in the grand design does different spin planets serve?

Read the in-depth info and not just the summary.

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there?any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
How about the "giant impact" theory? http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9707/28/moon.collision/

Again, read the in-depth section, it covers this and a number of other theories, all of which are inadequate.

I'm not sure how happy you will be with my response. Most of it was telling you to read the in-depth info and not just the summary. I hope that next time you will. Really, there is an answer for most questions, and the problems he lists have not been answered yet.

Just to bring some balance by presenting arguments that support creationism - so it's not all just an attack on evolution. Begginning here, and clicking on the next button, you will read a number of dating methods that indicate a young earth/universe.

As I said, I don't really want to waste more time on these discussions that go no-where. I should not have posted here in the first place. However, if you begin to genuinely question evolution and wonder if creationist arguments really do hold any water, I will be more than happy to help talk about it. But if after reading this you are not even slightly convinced at the fallacy of evolution, then I don't want to waste more time.

A couple of issues with this statement: First, C14 has nothing to do with dating the age of the earth (it's a short time scale tool).

Really, if the various methods were as fraught with problems as some people would lead you to believe, they would not agree with each other (they do) and scientists using them for other subjects that are not so politically charged would have stopped long ago.

Evolution took the world by storm. It won by popularity contest even before there was evidence for it, just Charles Darwin's hypotheses. The world was ready to hear it and they grabbed onto it.

Let's take an example. A fossil is found next to a trillobite. Let's say trilobites are dated at 350 million years old (don't know exact figure). Scientists see this new fossil, and say to themselves "It's next to a trilobite which we know to be 350 million years old, so it must be about the same". Then they write that result down. There is no C14 test because it is assumed no C14 will be present anmore.
To test this hypotheses creationists did some tests on samples that were supposedly millions of years old with no trace of C14. Tests showed that they did have acceptable amounts of C14 for a relevant testing. What does this say? Two things:
1. The dating methods are not consistent with each other
2. The dates of many fossils are based on the dates of others...meaning that if one of the early ones was found with a wrong date, then all the ones dated from it are false.
As far as I have been able to see, the dating methods do not agree with each other.
Ah, just found a nice summary with references after I wrote this.

Dr. Brown consistently complains that people attack him in forums in which he cannot respond (books, etc.). I've never seen him in the talk.origins newsgroup. It's a written forum, just as he required.

If you have a specific complaint about a particular scientific method used to support modern evolutionary theory and or modern geology, write it up and see if you can get it into a real journal with real experts waiting to critique your reasoning.

From Walt Brown's website: No journal would allocate the number of pages that such a debate would require. Besides, the journals you refer to are controlled by evolutionists, so they would likely not provide a platform to have their beliefs criticized. Nor do they publish any research questioning evolution and supporting creation. Publishers of these journals would be severely criticized by their subscribers and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a debate.) In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific American, withdrew a contract to hire a highly qualified assistant editor when the journal's executives learned he was a creationist.

That's like asking a Christian to let an atheist publish anti-God arguments in their monthly magazine. Face facts - evolution AND creation are more than just theories. The answer to these questions will be fundamentally more than just "how old is the earth?". It will address whether there is a God, whether there is an afterlife or not, whether this life has any meaning, and much more. Our whole life stands to be turned around by this question. So it is unreasonable for me to expect anyone to be unbiased about this question. Or at least any atheist (because many Christians have already reconciled their beliefs with evolution). This is not just a question of science, but a question of our entire life direction and purpose.

In kind, Tom Scharle has posted a set of 10 largely unanswered questions for the creationist side of things here [talkorigins.org]. Among highlights are, "Where did all of the water from the flood come from and go?" and "Is there any observation which was predicted by your [creation] theory?"

Oh my. Where did the water come from? If you don't know the answer to this then you really haven't understood the creation theory. There was, before the flood, a mist that covered the earth and watered it. There was, also, underground, large resorvoirs of water. When the flood occured this mist came as rain, and the underground resorvoirs burst from below and covered the earth. Where the water went - after this catastrophe the earth's shape was largely changed. Ocean basins were created and the waters receded into them. Imagine, if you can, that the earth was completely flat. Then there would be no problem of the water in todays oceans covering the earth. Now of course the earth isn't flat, but it is very different today to what it was before. There was a lot of geological upheaval during the flood.

As for predictions of the creatinist, check out the hydroplate theory (The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview) on Walt Brown's website. It includes a number of predictions. Alternatively, look for predictions in the index in the bottom left from.

And just again, for completeness sake, forums and newsgroups are not a fruitful place for evolution vs creation discussion. I have wasted many hours in fruitless, circular arguments. But like a sucker I keep coming back. I would not expect Walt Brown to do the same - hopefully he's wiser than me. And don't think I have this attitude because I'm defeated. I just get real tired of going around in circles. Which is why I'd like to see a final, authoritative discussion like Walt Brown proposes.

Anyway, signing out. I'm tired of these discussions.

I will grant you that current evolutionary theory is not an extension of the theories of creationists. I will also grant you that these time scales are still much slower than creationists'. However, punctuated equilibrium does argue for periods of "faster" evolution for some value of "faster."

My point was that the gist of the creationists' complaint was correct. Granted, the reasoning behind their complaint was probably flawed. Their argument has been that fossils are only created during catastrophic events and that fossils cut across multiple layers of rock. Thus the fossil record represents not millions but thousands of years. Look here, for example I am not endorsing this argument - I'm just saying that they've been making it for a long time.

What I'm saying is that scientists would do well to listen to their biggest critics rather than reacting with such hostility. People with such a radically different world view can often see flaws in tenets that scientists just blindly accept.

Creation scientists claimed for a while the possibility of the speed of light decreasing. They were hammered about this from every quarter. Now it seems that it might be credible.

A lot of science done seems to be based on the assumption that the universe is billions of years old, and that the earth itself is around 4.5 billion years old (subject to change). Indeed, a lot of dating methods such as c14 rely on assumptions that can't be verified - that would actually be false assumptions if we accept the creationist model including a worldwide flood.

It seems to me that everyone could benefit from the creation vs evolution question being finally answered. Science can only go so far if it is based on a faulty foundation.

So for all you budding evolutionists that are so sure your theory is correct - Dr. Walt Brown proposes a challenge which has never been taken up. A challenge that seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you don't feel you have the skills, then maybe you know others that do. Either way, the longer this challenge goes unanswered, the more certain creationists will feel about their position.

So anyway, Dr Walt Brown has a challenge of a written debate to settle this question. So far argument has been refined to pockets of discussion that don't go far, and books published against each other. This would be a great opportunity if anyone was confident enough in evolution.

And here's a list of excuses you might try to use to avoid this challenge:
Excuses - pick one or roll your own

At any rate, STOP treating creationists like children. I have had many evolution discussions and there is very little evidence for evolution at all. The weight certainly seems to be on the creationist side (and yes I am biased). There is certainly enough evidence for creation theory to make it credible, and not the realm of fairy tales. At least, before you feel tempted to call creationism a fairy tale, consider the following:
20 problems

Not all of us who believe in creationism do so blindly. At least understand (because very few people I've argued with understand the creationist position - they just know we think that the earth is young and there was a flood. That's it) our position and consider it properly. When I see a creationist argument I think to myself automatically, "If I believed evolution, how would I answer this?". That is because I understand evolution, at least as well as the next person. But no-one seems to understand the creationist position.