Evolution Questions: Answered!
Creation Ministries International has launched a “Question Evolution” campaign. Mostly, they seem to be looking to get parents to use their kids as shills in a publicity campaign featuring “Question Evolution” t-shirts.
I wouldn’t push for parents on the pro-science side to simply suit up their kids with a response, but if the students would like to show their pro-science colors, I’ve put up a Evolution Questions: Answered! T-Shirt design on CafePress. It features the “Evolution Questions: Answered!” logo with handy links to the TalkOrigins Archive and Panda’s Thumb weblog for all to see… and many to avoid or deny.
You can see all the TalkOrigins Archive designs here.
Very nice.
I’ve been meaning to ask you whether (and how) I can update the Quote Mine Project (given I have no html skills). Drop me a line at catsharkAToptonlineDOTnet. Thanks.
I like it!
I don’t mind as long as I can Wear my “QUESTION GOD” T Shirt…..;)
“and thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
“For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people.”
I’ve addressed lots and lots of falsehoods promulgated by various religious antievolution advocates here. Feel free to try to point out where anything I’ve said was incorrect. That ought to be easy for you, if the verse you quote is applicable to me.
On the other hand, maybe you don’t come at this from superior knowledge, and will continue to avoid discussing anything that can be empirically checked.
It is not so much superior intelect, but common sense. After a while, reading how you explain how very complex life came about by chance, it begins to look desparate. When a creationist mentions the obviousely highly improbable path of evolution of a Bombardier Beetle, for instance, in which the chemical reaction would have killed the insect itself without some preformed protective enclosure, Your best explanations just look like a lot of squirming. In the back of the mind of anyone who has even a entry level knowledge of current Microbiology, your simple explanations are almost laughable. How many eons would these beetles have needed to experiment to get it right? You would need trillions of years of random experiments and no extinction of the original DNA to get this type of complex life form. The chemical reaction itself … The bombardier beetle uses an explosive discharge as a defensive measure. The chemical reaction involved is the oxidation of hydroquinone by hydrogen peroxide to produce quinone and water.
C6H4(OH)2(aq) + H2O2(aq) C6H4O2(aq) + 2 H2O(l)
Calculate ?H for this reaction from the following data.
C6H4(OH)2(aq) C6H4O2(aq) + H2(g) ?H = +177.4 kJ
H2(g) + O2(g) H2O2(aq) ?H = -191.2 kJ
H2(g) + 1/2 O2(g) H2O(g) ?H = -241.8 kJ
H2O(g) H2O(l) ?H = -43.8 kJ
I’m sorry that 400 million years seams like such a long time to you. All kinds of fanciful magic can happen because you think this is such a huge amount of time. The mathemeticians and microbiologists are kind of spoiling your religion of evolution with the facts. Recent discoveries into the inner workings of living organisms blow this time construct away. So all of your scrambling for explanations now just look like a futile attempt to avoid thinking about a Creator. What it would mean to you.
I didn’t say “intellect”, I said “knowledge”. There is a difference.
Unless you post as “Amalie K.”, you just copied the chemistry stuff about bombardier beetles from this page. Is plagiarism supposed to convince me that you are making a critique from knowledge and not ignorance? Is a six-and-a-half month interval to search for that source to plagiarize (which I found in less than a minute) supposed to convince me that you are knowledgeable instead of ignorant?
The bombardier beetle isn’t a good example for antievolution. We don’t have video of the evolution of bombardier beetles, which is essentially the level of evidence that antievolutionists like yourself require. Fortunately, proof beyond unreasonable doubt is not the standard for science.
As for the “avoid thinking about a Creator” bit, you basically document here that you know nothing about me personally. Hint: Wikipedia.
Like I said six-and-a-half-months ago, feel free to try to point out where *I’ve* said something incorrect. So far, your response is all swings and misses.
First, I dont claim superior intellect nor knowledge, I did the same search for the Bombastic beetle you did, I didnt plagerize, I didnt think I was writting a term paper. The 6 month interval was because things come up in the normal course of Respiratory Therapists’life whose wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Second, I’m not trying to convert You or anyone else to a religiouse belief. If there were a God for real, wouldnt that be a scientific fact? A fact that maybee we could postulate about?Ben Stein points out in “Expelled” that in the U.S. only, is there a fear of real scientists postulating about evidence for inteligent design. It seems to me it is just common sense that design requires an intellegent designer. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the most vocal evolutionists living, in an interview with Mr. Stein, when asked about the new complexities being discovered in microbiology, hesitated and then appealed to intergalactic seeding of earth. In other words, common sense was backing him in a corner. 400 million years is not enough time for the magic. Again,The mathemeticians and microbiologists are kind of spoiling your religion of evolution with the facts.
From your, talk design, web site.
“•The fact that the laws of the universe are perfect for life is evidence for a Designer. The fact that the laws of the universe can’t produce life is evidence for a Designer.”
“I find ambivalence in the ‘intelligent design’ literature. When proponents are talking about the formation of living creatures or parts of living creatures, the proponents basically say, “Look, this particular creature or part of a creature could not have been assembled naturally. Therefore, it must be the product of ‘intelligent design'”.
[…]
“On the other hand, there are other occasions when proponents of ‘intelligent design’ say, “Look at the fine-tuning of the universe, the speed of light, Plank’s constant, the expansion rate of the universe, the gravitational constant, and on and on.
[…]
“Earlier, when we looked at natural capabilities and what was missing, we argued that there was design. The examples offered from the realm of cosmology and astronomy are used in one line of argumentation, and the examples from biology are used in a contradicting line of argumentation to reach the same conclusion. I find that a major inconsistency. In sort, it reminds me of, ‘Heads, I win; tails, you lose.'”
This is an example of just one argument that basically the casual reader will take into their belief system and lock away into there subconcious bullwork against any reasoned argument that may contradict evolution.
Soo, this scientist,way above my meager knowledge base, states thet a designer is used by I.D. proponents to explain the precise nature of the universe to support life. He then state that the I.D. folks state that ” laws of the universe can’t produce life is evidence for a Designer”
Now a perfect place for life to exist does NOT transfer to an ability to cause life to form complex structures. It mearly reveals that a perfect place for life to exist was designed. Common sense again. If I place the ingredience, proper temperature, and even all the letters to make up the recipe for a german chocolate cake complete with lit candles, 400 Billion years would not be long enough for them to get together on there own. The complexity of the ATP cycle is thousands of times more complex than the above german chocolate cake. So, it seems that the antievolutionists like myself, do NOT use contradictory logic as this scientist claims. Complex life forms designed with the ability to adapt CAN exclude self making german chocolate cakes regardless of how well designed the cakes living conditions. Now , if a simple guy like me can see this , I can only conclude that this guy and the guy that left this as proof of how stupid the folks on the I.D. side are, then maybee this disection of the matter may cause them to evaluate the possability that they have many of these hidden bullworks that cause them to not only reject good evidence, but also to overlook glaring shortcommings on their own side of the issue.
Assuming what you need to prove is a logical fallacy, and cannot be considered common sense.
Yes, and I guess all my points can be swept away and your bullwork is in tact. This is why the red states are in a battle with the blue states on this issue. and in the red states the elite are trying to force evolution, with no debate on I.D. The root of the matter is that the elite have been educated in schools without academic freedom on the issue. The true enemy of man is Satan, and he knew were to start, He also knew how to manipulate the core fear of man, his acountability to a Creator. This is why evolutionists have provided false evidence in the past, and why they fear I.D. They know it will affect peoples political leanings as well. After all the liberal desires the state to be the ultimate power on earth. while the conservative accknowledges mans rights that cannot be taken away because they are given to him by the Designer. This is why inside , the evolutionist loath the antievolutionist because they feal superior as humans, and they think the antievolutionist is self righteous. The worse thing on earth. They think we are judging and hating, I am hear to say I do not judge or hate and all of my friends are the same. You do not have to believe the lies of satan. We acknowledge our shortcommings. But the truth is still the truth.Watches do not make themselves.
The three dimensional presentations on this video are truly amazing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#