Disproving the Bible

[Jenny A]

Here is a list of other legit questions. Of course there are theories to explain each one of them. Are they sufficient? Do these questions, when taken together carry any additional weight?

Well, no, mostly they aren't legit questions. They are questions that have been asked and answered so often and so decisively that they can hardly be called legit.

1. Fossil record for intermediate forms. You have to drink a lot of coolaid to make the claim that the fossil record proves common decent. It could just as easily be used to prove the opposite.

Sorry, but actually the fossil record is rather amazing. It doesn't represent even the tiniest fraction of all the species that have ever lived, yet it still show some pretty fantastic sequences of mutation. Some of them can be seen here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

2. Genetics has wiped out the old "Tree of Life". Since different genes tell a different evolutionary story, it must be a web.

Not even sure what you mean here.

3. "Convergent Evolution". The odds of an organism developing a new useful feature is at the very least exceptional. To have the same or similar features evolve in parallel is simply staggering.

You mean like the independent development of flight in both birds and bats? Hardly staggering. And when it happens, and it happens a lot, the each independent development clearly uses the materials at hand. Bat wings and bird wings are vastly different in bone structure. Bat wings have the same bones in the same order as other mammals. Bird wings have bone structure resembling dinosaurs not mammals. It's evidence of common descent, not against common descent.

4. No vestigial organs or other features. Shouldn't we see all kinds of useless parts in all kinds of organisms on their way out?

Yep and we do. Have you had to have your wisdom teeth pulled? Appendix removed? Cave dwelling animals almost always have vestigial eyes often covered over with skin.

5. I know this get's into the origin of life issue, but we now know the cell is one of the most complicated things on the planet.

Yes it is getting into the origin of life issue.

6. GRNs are so complicated yet necessary for complex life. Chicken or the egg?

And yet again this is getting into the origins issue.

7. The ongoing net effect of random mutations is actually degrading functionality in human genetics.

Really? Not even quite certain what you mean: humans are becoming less fit? or humans no longer pass traits on genetically as well as they used to? What?

8. Mathematical improbability of enough time.

Those saying that this usually begin calculating probability of mutations without accounting for selection of traits.

But the part of your question that deserves an answer is this:

My point is that scientist are not trying to falsify the hypothesis of common ancestor. They have already accepted it as true (which I think is bias). When theist scientist (that don't have this bias) gather up all the questions in one place, they are labeled at best, crackpots.

First, make no mistake, there are many theist evolutionists. The Catholic church has officially accepted evolution. What there aren't is fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist Islamic evolutionists.

So why are fundamentalists who gather up a number of problems with how the evolutionary model works labeled "crackpots?" First, because most of them are not scientists and their problems are so often just quote mining (a form of lying) or refusal to look at the evidence. Second, because they start with the premise that the Bible is an accurate source of scientific knowledge which is frankly cuckoo. Third, because they do not suggest a viable alternative theory. Spontaneous new life forms is not a viable theory unless you can explain how it happens. God did it, is not an explanation that explains anything.