Genesis unleashed....15 questions for evolutionists.

[Peter Henderson]

CMI have been posting this series regularly on their Facebook page.

How many can you answer ?

Today we repeat the claim of living fossils:

http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?p ... FM1jJvnaW4

By the way, neither of the presenters have any evolutionary science qualifactions. One doesn't have any science qualifications at all !

[cathy]

Just too gobsmacked to respond. Who are these two idiots?

[Dagsannr]

These questions have been floating around for a while with the likes of PZ Meyers refuting them in detail.

Most of them are willfully disingenuous or just a clear misinterpretation of the science.

Incidently, a good indicator of the insanity behind them is that they're heavily pushed by the Conservapedia sysop 'Conservative', whose other masterpieces are the essays "atheism and obesity" and "atheism and bestiality".

[Peter Henderson]

Just too gobsmacked to respond. Who are these two idiots?

Two Canadians Cathy, Richard Fangrad:

http://creation.com/richard-fangrad

Richard Fangrad
Richard has been speaking on the creation/evolution issue since 1994 and involved with a creation-oriented ministry in Canada since 1996. The Canadian office of Creation Ministries International began as a room in his home in late 1998. As a speaker, he is known for his easy-to-understand scientific presentations. He was driven to get involved with creation ministry primarily because of the influence that creation materials and resources had on his own faith and his walk with Christ.

Richard's professional training is in electronics. He has worked on advanced communication satellite systems at Com Dev, a world leader in this field. Shortly before working in creation ministry full-time in 1999, he worked at Raytheon Canada and was involved in the early testing phases of the first all-digital radar system. He is now CEO of CMI–Canada and co-host CMI’s TV show Creation Magazine Live!

Richard and his family live in Kitchener, Ontario.

and Calvin Smith:

http://creation.com/calvin-smith

Calvin Smith
Calvin’s interest in creation ministry, particularly as a speaker, arose primarily because of seeing its effectiveness in strengthening the faith and evangelistic efforts of those exposed to the truth of God’s Word through this type of work.

Calvin was formerly on the pastoral staff of a church in Guelph, ON, overseeing the youth and small group ministries. Through working with young people, both inside the church and with a small group at the University of Guelph, Calvin personally witnessed the devastation brought to our youth by the teaching of evolutionary rationalism. But he also saw the life-transforming effect of biblical answers that encourage people to know that God’s Word can be trusted from the very first verse.

He says, "I grew up in an un-churched home. I can honestly say I was an atheist and accepted the humanist/naturalistic viewpoint that I was taught through the public school system and my environment (media, friends, siblings). I became involved in many negative behaviours and suffered from the effects of them. Looking back I can see key encounters with people that contributed to my conversion. However, it was not until I attended a few church services and had some specific stumbling blocks related to evolutionary theory removed that I was able to answer God’s call."

Calvin has spoken on creation topics since 2001 at youth groups, Christian schools, churches and small groups. He has also appeared on the CTS live call-in television program ‘Nite Lite Live’ several times, speaking about the creation/evolution issue. He also co-hosts CMI’s TV show Creation Magazine Live!

Through lots of reading, Calvin has become well equipped to talk about many aspects of science and history that relate to the creation/evolution controversy. He has consistently immersed himself in creation apologetics through seminars, classes, scientific papers and hands-on opportunities to study. When asked what formal science background he has, Calvin responds, "the same as Charles Darwin. His only formal training was in Theology!"

Calvin’s hobbies include music and wrestling.

He lives in Guelph, Ontario with his wife and 3 children.

Smith sounds not unlike dickboy on Premier, who tells me he also reads a lot !

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

Naturally, Calvin Smith is lying. At least he is lying about Darwin's education. I have a brief sketch Notes on Charles Darwins Education.

[Michael]

Naturally, Calvin Smith is lying. At least he is lying about Darwin's education. I have a brief sketch Notes on Charles Darwins Education.

I have a short paper on Darwin's 1831 trip with Sedgwick and a long one in the wings. Also one on his general trainign in natural history in Wales and one on his chemistry. These three should be ready in a year or so. My paper on D and glaciation in 1842 is almost in the proof stage - held up by one diagram - to be in Proc Geologists Assoc

Darwin's scienitffic training in edinburgh and then Cambridge - natural history under Henslow and geology under Sedgwick was excellent. Jim Secord reckoned that in 1831 he was one of the best trained naturalists.

On geology Sedgwick was more important than Lyell

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

We might as well see the whole list.
They are not too hard to rebutt.


15 Questions by Don Batten
1. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
2. How did the DNA code originate?
3. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
4. Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
7. How did multi-cellular life originate?
8. How did sex originate?
9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as the operational science?
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?


1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
3. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
4. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?
5. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
7. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
8. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
9. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.
10. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7
11. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
12. Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8
13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
14. Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12
15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

References:

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

[Roger Stanyard]

We might as well see the whole list.
They are not too hard to rebutt.

Indeed, Gary. For the astute, the tell-tale give away is that CMI is using rhetoric within the 15 statements.

However, even I can see straight through most of the "science" or know where to look to debunk a fair amount of the rest.

And I am not even remotely a scientist by either occupation or qualifications.

But, then, creationism isn't science so it doesn't need science to see through it, as creationists have found out the hard way in the courts, time and time again.

Nobody needs a science degree to see straight through a snake oil salesman. (It helps, though!)

[Peter Henderson]

They're pushing this well qualified creationist today, Dr. John Sanford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQ ... re=related

To be honest, it needs someone equally well qualfified to challenge this type of thing.

This guy's a genius. What hope have I got ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Sanford

Academic careerSanford graduated in 1976 from the University of Minnesota with a BSc in horticulture. He went to the University of Wisconsin–Madison where he received an MSc in 1978 and a PhD in 1980 in plant breeding/plant genetics. Between 1980 and 1986 Sanford was an assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell University, and from 1986 to 1998 he was an associate professor of Horticultural Science. Although retiring in 1998, Sanford continues at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor. He held an honorary Adjunct Associate Professor of Botany at Duke University. Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals[1][2].

[edit] InventionsSanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4] He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor.

[edit] Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the GenomeSanford has argued for devolution in his book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005, 2008).[5],[6] He summarized all evolutionary major population models in the Appendix.

[edit] Mendel's AccountantSanford and colleagues developed the quantitative forward genetic modeling program Mendel's Accountant. Sanford et al. published two peer reviewed papers dealing with genetic entropy in computing journals concerned with modeling methodology.[7][8]

Based on quantitative modeling evidence developed using Mendel's Accountant and from the mutation evidence he compiled, Sanford holds that the genome is deteriorating and therefore could not have evolved in the way specified by the modern evolutionary synthesis.

[edit] OriginsFormerly an atheist[9] since the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), old Earth creation (late 1990s), and young Earth creation (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000. An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God."

He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5,000 and 100,000" years.[10] An analogy Sanford uses to illustrate evidence of design is that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."[11] Intelligent design advocate William Dembski touts the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design, since Sanford is a specialist in genetic engineering and an Associate Professor in Horticulture. However, Sandford's position is rejected as pseudoscience by most Geneticists and Biologists[12][13] Dembski endorsed Sanford's book Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.[14]

[Brian Jordan]

Well, at least he makes no bones about who the designer is. He clearly believes in Theistic Design. No wonder he cut no ice in the Dover trial.

[Peter Henderson]

Well, at least he makes no bones about who the designer is. He clearly believes in Theistic Design. No wonder he cut no ice in the Dover trial.

No doubt genetic entropy is something ploughboy could get his teeth into brian.

Me, I haven't clue what he's on about.

[Roger Stanyard]

They're pushing this well qualified creationist today, Dr. John Sanford:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHsu94HQ ... re=related

To be honest, it needs someone equally well qualfified to challenge this type of thing.

This guy's a genius. What hope have I got ?


He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5,000 and 100,000" years.]

Can't see anything in Sanford's background to suggest he has any real, significant, knowledge of geology. I suspect anyone with a background in chemistry like you should be able to rip him to shreds on the "age of the earth".

[a_haworthroberts]

I recall this recent news story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17127617