"Good Questions to Ask an Evolutionist"

[Fake Messiah]

Answers in genesis are offering questions to kids titled "Good Questions to Ask an Evolutionist" in order to ask them in the classroom and other ungodly places where they can meet "Evolutionists".

How would you answer these questions:

1. While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in life. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for life might have formed? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

- Simple effect of symmetry?

2. Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed? (Be prepared to follow up with a question about hydrolysis—water decomposing molecules.)

- It is considered that life started deep in the ocean. But indeed early Earth lost a lot of hydrogen due to UV radiation. During the 1920s, Russian chemist A. I. Oparin and British scientist J. B. S. Haldane independently hypothesized that Earth’s early atmosphere was a reducing (electron-adding) environment, in which organic compounds could have formed from simpler molecules. The energy for this synthesis could have come from lightning and UV radiation. Haldane suggested that the early oceans were a solution of organic molecules, a “primitive soup” from which life arose.

3. Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans?

- What the heck are they talking about? If water breaks down the bonds between amino acids then we would be dead since most organisms are mostly water.

4. The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena.”3 Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

- It doesn't mean that if scientists can't (yet) reproduce some natural phenomena in the laboratory that it doesn't exist. Scientists can't reproduce birth of a star in the laboratory or photosynthesis but that doesn't mean that they don't qualify as a theory.

5. Microsoft uses intelligent programmers and complex codes to create the Windows operating system. However, information in DNA is millions of times more dense and complex. How could the process of evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

- If some earlier programs like DOS had some self copying mechanism then they could indeed evolve into Windows. But the problem is what forces of natural selection would lead DOS to evolve into Windows?

6. Bill Gates (founder and former CEO of Microsoft) recognized that the processing capabilities of DNA are “like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”4 Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? If not, then isn’t the origin of life still an unverified assumption?

- Pretty much combination of two previous questions.

7. DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Is there any compelling (observable) evidence for how all these components evolved at the same time or separately over time?

- Why do DNA & RNA need each other? True that DNA can't replicate without RNA, but RNA can self replicate. That's why RNA organisms are older than DNA organisms. These people obviously have never heard of ribozymes.

The rest of the question just seem too boring and/ or repeat from earlier questions. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to tackle them, but here they are:

8. Isn’t it true that whenever we see interdependent complex structures or codes we automatically assume an intelligent person had to put them together? So why do we assume that DNA, or RNA, or a cell, which is more complex than any computer ever designed, happened by chance? Doesn’t that seem to go against good science and logical thought?

9. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

10. A living cell is composed of millions of parts all working together and is considered more complex than any man-made machine. Then, since the process of evolution has no blueprints (cannot plan for the future) for building something, since over time things tend to deteriorate unless there is a mechanism in place to sustain them, since virtually all known mutations decrease genetic information (or are neutral), since natural selection would not be operating until the first cell formed, how could the process of evolution ever assemble something as complex as a living cell with all its information content?

11. Since we started with finches and the finches stayed finches, isn’t this just an example of variety within a kind?

12. Since we started with bacteria, and the bacteria that became resistant to the antibiotic remained bacteria, isn’t this just another example of variety within a kind?

13. What naturalistic evidence could actually disprove that evolution is the explanation for life on earth (or the formation of the universe)?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The usual "yeah, but!" stuff.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Follow me, here.  The website is called 'Answers in Genesis'.  I'm sure that answers to certain questions can be found in Genesis, but not to scientific ones.  As the religious johnnies are always telling us, 'The Bible isn't a science textbook!'  And the answers to biology the AIG people come up with are nonexistent - the only come up with what they think are 'gotcha' questions that a quick web search can destroy.  They aren't going to disprove evolutionary theory any more than they are going to disprove electromagnetism.

So, what is the point of engaging these fuckwits?

Boru

[Gwaithmir]

Follow me, here.  The website is called 'Answers in Genesis'.  I'm sure that answers to certain questions can be found in Genesis, but not to scientific ones.  As the religious johnnies are always telling us, 'The Bible isn't a science textbook!'  And the answers to biology the AIG people come up with are nonexistent - the only come up with what they think are 'gotcha' questions that a quick web search can destroy.  They aren't going to disprove evolutionary theory any more than they are going to disprove electromagnetism.

So, what is the point of engaging these fuckwits?

Boru

The point is to rationally expose their bullshit in public forums as long as necessary.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Follow me, here.  The website is called 'Answers in Genesis'.  I'm sure that answers to certain questions can be found in Genesis, but not to scientific ones.  As the religious johnnies are always telling us, 'The Bible isn't a science textbook!'  And the answers to biology the AIG people come up with are nonexistent - the only come up with what they think are 'gotcha' questions that a quick web search can destroy.  They aren't going to disprove evolutionary theory any more than they are going to disprove electromagnetism.

So, what is the point of engaging these fuckwits?

Boru

Remember that the Answers In Genesis people are the ones who built the Ark Encounter. Ken Ham's mind is so narrow his notepads are 5mm wide.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Follow me, here.  The website is called 'Answers in Genesis'.  I'm sure that answers to certain questions can be found in Genesis, but not to scientific ones.  As the religious johnnies are always telling us, 'The Bible isn't a science textbook!'  And the answers to biology the AIG people come up with are nonexistent - the only come up with what they think are 'gotcha' questions that a quick web search can destroy.  They aren't going to disprove evolutionary theory any more than they are going to disprove electromagnetism.

So, what is the point of engaging these fuckwits?

Boru

The point is to rationally expose their bullshit in public forums as long as necessary.

Sorry, but I feel that just feeds into their propaganda horse shit that there is some kind of a scientific debate about evolution.  And yes, I know if they aren't engaged, they immediately resort to the oh-look-the-evolutionists-are-afraid-of-us tactic.

The best response from the scientific community (as opposed to a point-by-point rebuttal) would be something along the lines of, 'Look, this is pretty much settled science.  I understand that you have questions about it, which is fine.  But your questions aren't questions about the science, they are non-questions about what you think the science is.  I'd be happy to help you understand it, but you haven't done any basic research - it would be like teaching quadratic equations to someone who hasn't mastered long division.  I would start with the many, MANY refutations to your points that are already on the web.  Now, please - I've got some actual research to get on with.  Go play with your dolly.'

Boru

[zebo-the-fat]

Since a god seems to be needed to create life, it seems logical that there must exist a kind of super god that created god (and maybe a super-dooper god to create the super god....!)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The point is to rationally expose their bullshit in public forums as long as necessary.

Sorry, but I feel that just feeds into their propaganda horse shit that there is some kind of a scientific debate about evolution.  And yes, I know if they aren't engaged, they immediately resort to the oh-look-the-evolutionists-are-afraid-of-us tactic.

The best response from the scientific community (as opposed to a point-by-point rebuttal) would be something along the lines of, 'Look, this is pretty much settled science.  I understand that you have questions about it, which is fine.  But your questions aren't questions about the science, they are non-questions about what you think the science is.  I'd be happy to help you understand it, but you haven't done any basic research - it would be like teaching quadratic equations to someone who hasn't mastered long division.  I would start with the many, MANY refutations to your points that are already on the web.  Now, please - I've got some actual research to get on with.  Go play with your dolly.'

Boru

I think the best response from the scientific community is to address the issues and ignore the people.

[The Grand Nudger]

1. While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in life. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for life might have formed? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

Not an evolutionary question.  

2. Since oxygen is known to destroy molecular bonds, and since the lack of oxygen in the atmosphere (meaning no ozone) would cause all potential life to be destroyed by ultraviolet rays, how could life have formed? (Be prepared to follow up with a question about hydrolysis—water decomposing molecules.)

Not an evolutionary question.

3. Since water breaks down the bonds between amino acids (a process called hydrolysis), how could life have started in the oceans?

Not an evolutionary question.

4. The National Academy of Sciences defines a theory as “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” and science as “the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena.”3 Does this mean scientists can reproduce how life originated or test any step of the process for how life evolved? If not, then how can evolution qualify as a theory?

Not an evolutionary question, with the exception of "test any step of the process for how life evolved" to which the answer is a simple yes, we can.  

5. Microsoft uses intelligent programmers and complex codes to create the Windows operating system. However, information in DNA is millions of times more dense and complex. How could the process of evolution, using natural processes and chance, solve the problem of complex information sequencing without intelligence? (Be prepared for an answer involving “given enough time it could happen.”)

It doesn't.  

6. Bill Gates (founder and former CEO of Microsoft) recognized that the processing capabilities of DNA are “like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”4 Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? If not, then isn’t the origin of life still an unverified assumption?

Not an evolutionary question.

7. DNA, RNA, and proteins all need each other as an integrated unit. Even if only one of them existed, the many parts needed for life could not sit idle and wait for the other parts to evolve because they would dissolve or deteriorate. Is there any compelling (observable) evidence for how all these components evolved at the same time or separately over time?

Yes.

8. Isn’t it true that whenever we see interdependent complex structures or codes we automatically assume an intelligent person had to put them together? So why do we assume that DNA, or RNA, or a cell, which is more complex than any computer ever designed, happened by chance? Doesn’t that seem to go against good science and logical thought?

No.

9. Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

Yes.  

10. A living cell is composed of millions of parts all working together and is considered more complex than any man-made machine. Then, since the process of evolution has no blueprints (cannot plan for the future) for building something, since over time things tend to deteriorate unless there is a mechanism in place to sustain them, since virtually all known mutations decrease genetic information (or are neutral), since natural selection would not be operating until the first cell formed, how could the process of evolution ever assemble something as complex as a living cell with all its information content?

Not an evolutionary question.

11. Since we started with finches and the finches stayed finches, isn’t this just an example of variety within a kind?

Sure. If finches are a kind.

12. Since we started with bacteria, and the bacteria that became resistant to the antibiotic remained bacteria, isn’t this just another example of variety within a kind?

Sure, unless finches are a kind.  

13. What naturalistic evidence could actually disprove that evolution is the explanation for life on earth (or the formation of the universe)?

Modern Synth isn't a theory on abiogenesis , nor is it a comment on cosmology.

[madog]

Answers in genesis are offering questions to kids titled "Good Questions to Ask an Evolutionist" in order to ask them in the classroom and other ungodly places where they can meet "Evolutionists".

  

Damn I don't know the answers, can you look them up in your bible for me please