5 Questions that can not be answered by evolutionists
Mikey 42 comments
Courtesy of our friends at the thecreationmuseum.org comes these 5 questions, which apparently can not be answered by evolutionists. In the interest of not making you visit the eyesore of a site in question, I have mirrored the questions below.
- 1) How Did Nothing Turn Into Something?
- 2) How Did Life Come From Non-Life?
- 3) How Did Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?
- 4) How Can A Watch Come Into Existence Without A Watchmaker?
- 5) How Did Thought Come From Non-Thought?
If anyone wants to have a go that would be swell. I will understand if you don't want to answer number 1, as the question proves the original authors ignorance being it has nothing to do with evolution.
As this is a serious discussion, answering all 5 questions with 'God did it' without something to back it up won't earn you a brownie point. In other words, not having an answer isn't an answer :-O
Elvoski
Tuesday 26th February 2008 | 10:49 PMGod did it! I mean c'mon! It says so right in the bible! It must be true! What other proof do we need?
/\/\@ximus
Tuesday 26th February 2008 | 11:28 PMI know one area a designer wasn't involved and thats the ugly web site you linked to. Thanks for hurting my eyes.
andrew
Wednesday 27th February 2008 | 12:27 AMso do we go to the back of the book for answers?
1. where's the proof for 'nothing before something'? besides, we humans are always making something out of nothing i.e.; politics and religion.
2. life from non-life? How do we define life? is an atom alive or a quark alive? and how do we define non-life? a dream???
3. No evidence??? look at the fossil record and the DNA sequencing that shows how related we are to all 'life' on earth.
4. A watch without a watchmaker??? does there really need to be a builder?? and what if the watch isn't even real? what if the watch is an illusion?
5. How is it even possible to consider a 'non-thought'? and this is assuming that physical being is a prerequisite for 'conscious' thought.
Granted, these are not answers...only more questions to the questions...damn creationist!!
Assume for a moment that energy is a ball of clay. It can be molded and shaped. Who molded and shaped energy into what we call life. I am sure there is something. I know there are some around here that find the very notion of God laughable. While I believe in God I am willing to theorize that energy could align itself into a life form. Energy never truly dissipates or so I heard. It does however change. Then there is that grand daddy of a question where did the energy come from. Time the universe and everything has to have a beginning right?
Dream with me for a moment. Time does not exist. It is nothing more than idea to help us cope with our reality. If time does not exist then how could it have a beginning. We think in limits. That's the problem.
So if time does not exist and energy can align itself to form life as we know it, then what about life and existence that we don't know about. I really think it is O.K. to say I am not sure but I have some ideas. We are supremely arrogant beings that think we have the answers to everything. Everyone has their truth but no one really knows "THE" truth.
I am sure there are answers to those 5 questions but I really do not think that our minds have evolved enough to actually understand and comprehend those answers. Let's face it, the human race as a whole has still got a long to go.
Jake
Wednesday 27th February 2008 | 11:25 AM
1. Conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. This does not have any exceptions. As the theory goes, even atoms have a gravitational pull. Over an infinate amount of time, a mass of atoms grouped together and under the accumulated gravity, created the tremendous friction responsible for the combustion necessary for such an epic explosion of the big bang. Nothing in the universe begins complex it always starts out simple and continually evolves.
This has nothing to do with evolution though.
2. Again, as the theory goes, primordial ooze, a mixture of hyper conductive, super fertile volcanic mud, brought about by billions of years of intense heating and cooling of the earths outer layers, is struck by lightning which strikes trillions of times a day. The right set of circumstances were bound to bring about the first single celular life at some point. If your idea of god is impersonal, and refers more to the interconnectivity of all life through energy and atomic similarity, you're probably right, to a certain extent.
3. Birds and fish are two entirely different species, yet most reproduce in exactly the same way. Apes, monkeys and humans are entirely different species and yet we reproduce in the exact same way, we even nurture our children in similar ways. Even our social structures are similar. There is also significant fossilised evidence of the progression from one species to the next which shows a great deal of impirical evidence for spontaneous evolution.
4. How did the watchmaker come into existence without a watch to draw its name from? Again, things in the universe do not begin as infinately complex, they begin as simple atoms and continually evolve, much the same as the way that technology has evolved in the last 1000 years on this planet.
5. The pictures and stories of adam and eve contained no mention of motor cars or F-22 aircraft, hence I can only guess that creationists concede that the human ability for creativity and ingenuity is a constantly evolving phenomenon. As the newly evolved human race went from hunter-gatherer to industrialist, our tools evolved with us, a spear became a bow and arrow, an axe became a hoe and rake. Evolution happens every day; we watch our childrens minds open up to take in ever increasing vollumes of information.
Helen
Wednesday 27th February 2008 | 09:35 PM
I don't get creationists. Science finds answers to problems every day but creationists still cling to the god concept myth. I am reminded of ancient tribesman who blame everything from volcano eruptions to the outcome of a hunting trip on the mood of the goods. These people are early creationists who wouldn't accept any other answer for the events that surround them.
These days we are smart enough to know science explains why volcanoes erupt and why some fishing expeditions turn out worse than others. Even modern day creationists find the concept of volcanic eruptions being caused by angry gods as completely insane, yet they get upset when someone challenges their own ancient scriptures which describe fantasies that are just as crazy.
The one fantasy I'm most fond of is Noah's Ark. 2 of every animal in the world on a single boat. Let's put that into perspective.
1) There are over 16,000 species of animals in the world.
2) An average modern small zoo accomodates around a hundred or more species of animals. A zoo of this capacity requires on a daily basis:
* A ton of hay
* 35 pounds of fish
* 50 pounds of meat
* 100 stalks of celery
* five pounds of red onions
* 100 pounds of carrots
* 25 pounds of spinach
* 15 pounds of kale
* 10 pounds of mixed vegetables
* 150 pounds of sweet potatoes
* 10 heads of cabbage
* 48 heads of romaine
* 30 ears of corn
* four loaves of wheat bread
* 24 eggs
* a pound of yogurt
* 40 pounds of bananas
* eight pounds of blueberries
* 170 oranges
* 500 apples
* 36 cantaloupes
* four papayas
* 250 rodents (the variety pack)
* 6000 mealworms
* 600 wax worms
* 7500 crickets
Noah would have needed around 160 times this amount of resources just for a single day, and then multiply that by 40 days. Then there's the issue of survival rates, specific animal dietary requirements and a vast manpower on hand to care and feed the animals.
You can see where I am going (have gone) with this. Basically if you honestly believe in this fairy tale I will only forgive you if your IQ is lower than your shoe size.
I don't mind saying this, but to me believing in a god these days makes you just as ignorant as the ancient tribesman were thousands of years ago.
Joe Marco, Jake and Helen made my day.
Thanks guys.
When will people realise that the very concept of God is constructed in a way that it cannot be disproved? Reading about Bertrand Russell's teapot-concept is probably an unlikely event to hope for, but what would religious people think when confronted with the notion The Flying Spaghetti Monster??
Even though clever remarks (to the 5 questions) have been provided, I'm afraid it is in vain towards theists:
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell
another larry
Thursday 6th March 2008 | 05:55 AM
1) How Did Nothing Turn Into Something?
a) there has always been something.
2) How Did Life Come From Non-Life?
a) there has always been life.
3) How Did Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?
a) there is plenty of evidence of adaptation to an environment
4) How Can A Watch Come Into Existence Without A Watchmaker?
a) with time
5) How Did Thought Come From Non-Thought?
a) everything has thought a human’s has the added amount of a figment and the imagination punctuated by grunts and groans
david
Friday 4th April 2008 | 12:43 AM
...in response to this comment
by Joe Marco.
Metaphysics the best you can do? We're in a dream state?
Grow up
Warren H
Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 02:27 PM
...in response to this comment
by Helen.
Helen, thanks for your comments, but as always such answers to questions are from not thinking it out properly.
Noah's Ark was three stories high. This made its total deck area equivalent to the area of about 36 lawn tennis courts. The average size of animal is about the size of an adult sheep. From this, we can calculate that the Ark could have held about 522 railroad stock cars full of sheep-sized animals. This is eight freight trains with 65 carriages on each!
Remember too that not every creature went on the Ark. Fish and other sea creatures didn't go on, and they account for a very large percentage of the world's animals. It was only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals that went on the Ark — and even many of them are very small, such as spiders, worms, beetles, etc.
So as someone once said... "Wen we realize that not every type of butterfly, snake, kangaroo, or whatever had to go on board — only the major “kinds” — we find that there might have been only about 35,000 animals on board. So the question is not so much how did they all fit, but what did Noah use all the left-over room for?"
Anders
Tuesday 22nd April 2008 | 02:52 PM...in response to this comment by Warren H. The real question would be how could anyone - even with today's transport technologies and logistics, gather 35,000 animals and put them into the same location. Anyone who thinks Noahs Ark is a possible feat of engineering and animal conservation and resource management 2000 years ago is on crack.
Jake
Wednesday 23rd April 2008 | 06:15 AM
...in response to this comment
by Anders.
While I'm not on crack, I do believe it is possible to construct such an arc and perform such a feat with today's technology, though invariably it is rather pointless.
In saying that, I do not believe that a senior citizen and his kids could do such a thing.
In saying that, while I'm sure with today's tech we could recreate the egyptian great pyramids, I have no concept of the enormity of such a task in aeons past.
adrian
Monday 19th January 2009 | 06:12 PMi guess the answer to 3 is - slow evolution and the answer to 4 would be - it can't
adrian (got spare time)
Monday 19th January 2009 | 06:16 PMHow bout this.... every question can be answered, however can the question be answered correctly (very Confucius)
ginger_nut
Wednesday 13th May 2009 | 09:16 PMthe first question has everything to do with evolution it says how did nothing turn into the life we have today?? it makes you think of what may have been here before humans before dinosaurs before viruses and particles, its like saying did the big bang occur? does god exist? no-one knows yet they think about theses thinga all the time
nathan the whizz
Sunday 7th June 2009 | 03:13 AM
i will attempt to argue against the following points:
no.1 this point is not valid due to a reason. i could say that the process of evolution and the is infinite, and this is possible due to the fact that microorgnisms are impossible to keep a record of.there is also the theory of the big bang. this suggests that something from nothing is possible.
no.2 this is the same point as above
no.3 evolution is a gradual process, not one of major change
no.4 you cannot compare a watch to the complexity of a living organism, simply that the 'maker' of each one is completely different and only one of them can make both things; God
no.5 there is no way to prove that creatures can't have thought, even micoorganim.just cus it cant communicate is not a reason.
Amy
Wednesday 10th June 2009 | 07:07 PManswer to question 1. Because nothing is still something.
Kyle
Monday 7th September 2009 | 01:29 PMThe answer to number 1 is, First in order to turn nothing into something, you've got to start with some ideas and imagination. And the answer to 4, William Paley in the book "Natural Theology" termed the sentence "God is a Watchmaker"
GinaSquitieri
Monday 7th September 2009 | 11:54 PMNothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. As the song goes.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 07:23 AM
The only difference between something and nothing, according to string theory, is it's rate of vibration. Vast stretches of completely empty space are filled with nothing, or more specifically, the antythesis of something.
Something can come from nothing, all it takes is a catalyst, a big bang, a pan-dimensional being, who knows... maybe even a magical sky pixie.
GinaSquitieri
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 08:47 AM
Hi Jake,
No, no, no! Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could! It's so simple, even a child can understand it. (What was that that Friendo said about children getting screwed by adults?)
Stating boldly that vast stretches of c-om-p-l-e-t-e-l-y empty space (as opposed to what? PARTIALLY empty space?!) are f-i-l-l-e-d (filled? oh come on!) with nothing is ludicrous. That statement is c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y oxymoronic. And how in the WORLD do you know that for a fact? Have you studied the vast empty space yourself? Maybe one day you will get the opportunity and will find the truth. But for now, we have actual scientists who do study space and they are theorizing that dark energy is what "fills" all that "empty" space. You should know that just because you can't see something does not mean nothing is there.
Can you see air? No. No one can. But you can see and/or feel the effects of it.
And then you make another completely ridiculous statement. You're only parroting what you've read or heard or making a joke, I can't tell which.
"Something can come from nothing, all it takes is a catalyst, a big bang..."
Jakey!!!! That's like saying the big bang (the catalyst) is "nothing."
Boy. I sure hope your professors don't see what you've written.
Anyway, gotta run. Try to be nice now.
Rodney
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 09:06 AM
...in response to this comment
by GinaSquitieri.
I think you're confusing "nothing" with "matter". Space is not full of nothing - it's full of energy.
Energy and matter are interchangeable (e=mc^2, remember. Energy = mass * speed^2). So what you define as nothing could better be thought of as potential energy (not in the traditional sense of Ep but in the sense of energy in potentia). Space is largely full of huge spaces without (much) matter. It's not a total vacuum, but it's pretty damn close. But there's a hell of a lot of energy out there in that nothing. If you don't think so, then think about how the sun is warming the Earth - by transmitting energy through that medium of "nothing" all the way over to your skin, to give you that sunburn. Without energy travelling in space you wouldn't be able to see stars. So all that energy in the middle of nowhere has the potential to be matter.
So convert that energy into matter is certainly theoretically possible and plausible. How it's specifically done in any one case - well lots of theories exist I suppose.
GinaSquitieri
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 09:22 AM
...in response to this comment
by Rodney.
What's that matter, Rod, baby not letting you get any shut-eye? haha.
I did not confuse nothing and matter. I said "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. NOTHING EVER COULD."
Here's how I define nothing. NOTHING. Not one, single, solitary, itsy bitsy, teensy, weensy thing. NO THING. P
And thank you for backing me up. I agree that "there's a hell of a lot of energy out there in that nothing." Yes!
GinaSquitieri
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 09:34 AM
Furthermore, when you think about the fact that if all that space were void of everything, including energy or "vibrations", how is it that the planets and stars don't collide into one another? Something is keeping that from happening. And something is causing the universe to expand or "stretch."
Thank you.
Man, I'm always sorry I say anything. Maybe I should go now.
Mikey? Can you cancel my account, please?
Jake Farr-Wharton
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 10:25 AM
...in response to this comment
by GinaSquitieri.
Professors love crack-pot theories, as long as you can explain them!
What stops planets from coliding, well, distance, and the gravity of an object like a sun will always effect a planet more than that of another planet or moon. There are millions and millions of killometers between every planet, they are far enough away that their effect on each other (with the exception of the larger bodies such as gas giants shielding the smaller ones from meteors and asteroids) is minimal.
The reason why the galaxy is expanding can be explained by the initial big bang, i.e. we are still expanding away from the common point of origin.
Personally, I'm not convinced about dark matter at this stage, we can see that some astonomical bodies are being effected by what seems to be nothing, but our methods for looking out at the universe, while still incredible for our life and times, have a long way to go.
Gina, you have this tremendous effect on me. Every time I comment or respond to something of yours, I find myself looking deeper and deeper. As a consequence, I'll always remain open.
Love your work!
Rodney
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 10:46 AM
...in response to this comment
by GinaSquitieri.
"...Furthermore, when you think about the fact that if all that space were void of everything, including energy or "vibrations", how is it that the planets and stars don't collide into one another? Something is keeping that from happening. And something is causing the universe to expand or "stretch..."
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? Planet and other bodies in space do collide into one another all the time. Ever heard of a crater? Gravity makes sure of this. Vibrations have nothing to do with it - there's no suitable medium to carry their energy. Given enough time, Earth will in fact collide into the nearest star - Sol (i.e. the sun).
Don't be sorry you spoke. I'm not arguing with you (although there'd be nothing wrong if I was - that's what this site is for). I'm simply making as statement, the same as you. I suppose if anything I am agreeing with you that nothing cannot come from nothing and arguing with Jake, when he says it can.
Now go enjoy your day!
aries
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 11:13 AM
Ummmmmmmm.... I'm no intemellectual scientisty guy, but I'm pretty darn sure that matter and energy qualifies as some-thing as opposed to no-thing!
And, I find it funny, no HILARIOUS, that people believe in a god that they cannot hear see touch or even prove exists in any way shape or form, yet you will question science?
Confusedly yours,
me...x
Cactus
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 07:40 PM
Isnt it strange how it is those questions and other thoughts that make religion and life so difficult to understand and even deny
Questions 1,2,4 and 5 can never be answered by man or science, its like a joke played out on us by a God?
Even if science sparks life, does it spark thought, conscience or remorse. What makes one man placid and generous and another hateful and greedy.
Where does compassion come from. What right has somebody to judge a fat person or judge a stupid scientist trying to big note himself. (Thats you I am refering to Davevb), then bitch about fundamentalists and then deny hypocrisy (yes I know)
Beer and Monster Truck time
Science, still trying to work out if a man thinks with his big head or his little one.
aries
Tuesday 8th September 2009 | 08:12 PM
if I wasn't laughing so hard I would just say... wait for it... *SIGH*
Priceless...
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 9th September 2009 | 08:10 AM
...in response to this comment
by Rodney.
Actaully, thanks for picking that up Rodney, I should have explained myself.
By something from nothing requiring a catalyst, I'm refering to chemical exchange which is also represented in biology (in the way that a male and female gamaete create a rapidly dividing celular structure that forms a life).
Infinate numbers of electrons and protons and neutrons; hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, xenon floating out there in nothingness, given infinity, will accumulate and gravitate together until eventually their density causes a fusion that simeltaneously forms all matter in the universe and scatters it perfectly enough to form solar systems that will eventually form life. Something from nothing.
Jake Farr-Wharton
Wednesday 9th September 2009 | 09:03 AM...in response to this comment by Cactus. Cactus, I wrote an article for you.
Jake
Monday 18th January 2010 | 01:13 PM...in response to this comment by Franken. Franken- who designed you?
Alexander
Tuesday 16th March 2010 | 04:33 AM
1) How Did Nothing Turn Into Something?
2) How Did Life Come From Non-Life?
3) How Did Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change?
4) How Can A Watch Come Into Existence Without A Watchmaker?
5) How Did Thought Come From Non-Thought?
The real questions is, are we asking the right questions?
1)do we know that nothing turned in to something? if not, what is the connection between nothing, and something?
2)Do we know that life comes from no life? what is the connection between non life, and life? what is life?
3)how do we know that Millions of Life Forms Evolve With Absolutely No Evidence of Major Change? how do we know what evidence to look for?
4)How can something have been the first? if not, what's the connection between the past, present, and future?
5) do we really konw what thoughts are?
Henk V
Tuesday 16th March 2010 | 07:12 AM
The only way to answer that is; science is the study of nature. You don't start questioning the Big Science of 2010 with the mindset of a pre 1910 lay person.
I would advise the pollster to emancipate his or herself and get a bit more involved than just the day to day enjoyment of the fruits of the science that has been investigating the above questions.
Mindless musing (as noted from some of the respondents) is not a tool of the sciences. It didn't even get you a clay tablet.
ScienceGirl
Thursday 29th April 2010 | 06:44 AM...in response to this comment by Elvoski. GOD? really?! hello its called science and "god" i dont think has "magical powers" to make life. and of course everyone who belives in "god" will belive that he started it but nobody knows
I didn’t have time to read all the comments above so forgive me if I repeat what someone else said (although considering most people on here are atheists I doubt that I will).
Just two quick thoughts.
1. While question #1 is not about evolution directly, it does seek to find an answer from the neo-Darwinians who exclude God as even a possible answer to the question (which you are as I will point out in my second statement.) It may not be about speciation, but it does ask the fundamental question – why is there anything at all? If there is no God to create, and there was infinite nothingness prior to the Big Bang, then how did nothing bring forth everything? I think the answer “God created it” is actually much more satisfactory an answer than saying that it came uncaused. Especially by your own critique of those who answer “God did it” as a non-answer” in which you set the standard that a non-explanatory answer is not allowed, the answer “everything came by nothing and from nothing” is hopelessly less sufficient than the theistic answer. In fact, it seems to be worse than magic. At least with magic, when a rabbit appears you have a magician and a hat. In the case of Neo-Darwinian big bang cosmology you have a rabbit, but no magician, no hat, no cause. It just is. Yet this actually seems to destroy science. Imagine if you allowed for such explanation in other cases.
a. The bank manager is found with $2000 in his briefcase that wasn’t there before – it just popped into existence.
b. There is a car in my drive way that wasn’t there yesterday – it just popped into existence.
I could go on but you get the point. In no other case would the “It just popped into existence without a sufficient cause” answer EVER be acceptable. We know from all experience that things do not pop into existence out of nothing by nothing without sufficient cause. Saying “God created it” is a sufficient cause even if we may not know HOW God created it. I can know that Ford designed the combustion engine without knowing how he did it. Answering the question, “how did the combustion engine come to be” with “Ford invented it” is a perfectly acceptable answer, even if it may be incomplete.
2. I have already semi-stated my second point above, by let me say it here explicitly. You final statement, that positing God as the answer is somehow a non-answer, is not only incorrect, but it also raises the standard above what the Atheist wants to answer. It is to dismiss another answer by presupposition rather than by the merits of the answer itself. The theist DOES have an answer – The sufficient cause of the universe if God. The atheist does not have an answer – it just is. So you are actually right – to give no answer is not an answer (thanks for the tautology). But this does not apply to the theist, but to the atheist. It does not apply to the person who says “Ford designed it” but to the one who says “the combustion engine just is.”
i'm a creationist
Tuesday 18th May 2010 | 11:56 AM
i am doing a debate for evolution right now and i was assigned evolution.
unfortunitely i can answer all those questions and i am 16 years old.
question 1,2&4 are saying the same thing so i will answer them as one:
within the last couple of years two scientists, Scott T. Martin & Xiang V. Zhang, reversed the Krebs cycle which resulted in enzymes and other biomolecules from carbon dioxide, a gas existant in the non life supporting universe (fyi). this was repeated several times and 3 out of 5 it worked & produced biomolecules that are the building blocks for RNA which goes on to become the building blocks of life.
and the ? about no transitional forms well look up durodon, pakicetus, basilosaurus, archaeopteryx and before you say that arche. has already been proven to not be a transitional fossil new research dated May 11, 2010, has show chemical links.... just go to this website i have to hw to finish and this would take too long (www.sciencedaily.com) look up x-ray reveals chem link between birds and dinosaurs
kylinio
Monday 7th June 2010 | 05:55 PM...in response to this comment by Elvoski. that is if you belive in god for how anyone knows the big bang could have made it or a series of binary even the number42 forgod sakke your being told this by a 12 yr old what the hell is wrong with you
Franken
Tuesday 26th February 2008 | 10:16 PM1 question creationists can't answer: who designed the designer?