WARNING, reading these questions might result in permanent brain damage...or just lost of hair.
here's the link
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/ ... ists-s.pdf
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.” Andrew
Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really
know how life originated on this planet”. 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 and 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. See
creation.com/meta-information. 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.”
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.” Francis Crick, the codiscoverer
of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote,
“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they
see was not designed, but rather evolved.” 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”. Other evolutionist fossil
experts also admit 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.”
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’ STORYTELLING
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.”
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.” 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 ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.
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.”
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 ....” 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.” If “you can’t teach
religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
