Answering the 15 Questions Pamphlet (Part 1 - Abiogenesis and the origins of DNA)

Link to creation.com's site for this ludicrous campaign : http://creation.com/question-evolution

The Pamphlet on itself : http://creation.com/question-evolution

Link to the channels of the YouTubers featured in this video (aside from myself of course) :
http://www.youtube.com/user/SuperSoylent2
http://www.youtube.com/user/AnswersinBooks
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvoGenVideos
Be sure to check this channel, responsible for the amazing looking graphs at the beginning : http://www.youtube.com/user/ONESPECIES

The full list of references used in the whole Project : http://www.mediafire.com/?0ds7et97h93qg5u
The references in regards to the definition of Biological Evolution : http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml
http://biology.about.com/od/evolution/a/aa110207a.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

Link to the director's cut of the Project (with additional scenes) : COMING SOON

Link to the separate clips used : COMING SOON (despite some uploading them before schedule when they are not supposed to)

Here is a list of references used for the questions featured in this video :

QUESTION 1 - 1. E. Anders, PRE-BIOTIC ORGANIC-MATTER FROM COMETS AND ASTEROIDS. Nature 342, 255 (Nov, 1989).
2. J. R. Cronin, S. Pizzarello, Enantiomeric excesses in meteoritic amino acids. Science 275, 951 (Feb, 1997).
3. W. Gilbert, ORIGIN OF LIFE - THE RNA WORLD. Nature 319, 618 (Feb, 1986).
4. J. F. Kasting, EARTHS EARLY ATMOSPHERE. Science 259, 920 (Feb, 1993).
5. D. H. Lee, J. R. Granja, J. A. Martinez, K. Severin, M. R. Ghadiri, A self-replicating peptide. Nature 382, 525 (Aug, 1996).
6. S. L. Miller, J. L. Bada, SUBMARINE HOT SPRINGS AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. Nature 334, 609 (Aug, 1988).
7. E. D. Schneider, J. J. Kay, LIFE AS A MANIFESTATION OF THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Math. Comput. Model. 19, 25 (Mar-Apr, 1994).
8. D. Segre, D. Ben-Eli, D. W. Deamer, D. Lancet, The lipid world. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 31, 119 (Feb-Apr, 2001).
9. S. G. Zhang, T. Holmes, C. Lockshin, A. Rich, SPONTANEOUS ASSEMBLY OF A SELF-COMPLEMENTARY OLIGOPEPTIDE TO FORM A STABLE MACROSCOPIC MEMBRANE. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 3334 (Apr, 1993).

QUESTION 2 - "Biology: Eighth Edition" by Raven et. al., "Chapter 14- DNA: The Genetic Material," "Chapter 15- Genes and How They Work"

"Anatomy and Physiology: Eighth Edition" by Marieb and Hoenh, "Chapter 2- Chemistry Comes Alive- Part 2: Biochemistry," "Chapter 3- Cells: The Living Units"

"DNA: The Secret of Life" by James D. Watson and Andrew Berry, "Chapter 3- Bringing DNA to Life," "Chapter 7- The Human Genome: Life's Screenplay," "Chapter 8- Reading Genomes: Evolution in Action"

Unlike most Proeminent Creationist sites and sources, this video is open to all opinions. So feel free to express yourselves !
I hope you find this video enlightening dear viewers.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation.com
• ppsimmons
• shockofgod
• nephilimfree
• evolution
• young
• earth
• creationism
• science
• abiogenesis
• question
• evolution!
• campaign
• Answersinbooks
• EvoGenVideos
• SuperSoylent2
• Creation
• Ministries
• International
• chemistry
• religion
• education

[AndyinPhoenix]

What? WHAT??? CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE MUSIC. Oh good you turned it off. Here it comes again, WHAT? HUH????  Oh there, it's off again...

[lapkine77]

@AndyinPhoenix watch it here it's fixed :)

/watch?v=_rHJfeW9sqY

[CJFCarlsson]

That is not the definition of evolution, silly.

[lapkine77]

@CJFCarlsson Yes it is - read the references in the description.

[CJFCarlsson]

@lapkine77 The first thing is that a reference to your mum is not really enough. The second is that you only use half of the definition.

[lapkine77]

@CJFCarlsson lol u be trolling bro ?

[zachariasadams1984]

the pamphlet should properly be called "15 questions the biologists cannot dumb the answers down enough for us to understand."

It's like asking a child to understand molecular physics be explaining how subatomic particles work like magnets.

[IIIBradIII]

@lapkine77 What you are describing is better suited to a Natural Selection debate than the broader view of modern, neo-darwinian Evolution. You will find little disagreement from creationists that natural selection is an observable fact of nature, but what Evolution fails in its attempt to extrapolate from such clear adaptation is the theory that an unintelligent molecule singularly and eventually formed all of our modern world, including mankind itself.

[CrimsonVoid]

Why is it that I prefer to listen to British, Australian, New Zealand, etc, people talk about science? I’m not opposed to listening to people with American accents; it’s just more pleasant for me when the speaker has some other accent.

[hpotter103]

Creationists want to go back to ancient Greece, where people were afraid to simply say "I don't know" and therefore had to pull answers out of their ass. Modern scientists should not be afraid to say, "Sorry, we don't know simply because we don't have enough evidence." After all, if scientists knew everything they could, then there'd be no reason for them to even exist!

[wsad45]

Lol that guy answering the 2nd question has no clue as to what DNA is! DNA is like a computer code (1 or 0 in our computers), but it has 4 different symbols for coding information. DNA is the most complex information storage and coding system there is. It can be read forwards and backwards, it even has spatial coding depending on how it is positioned in 3D space. It is like a quantum computer and suggesting that it could emerge accidentally is ludicrous. You are seriously underestimating DNA.

[AndyinPhoenix]

@lapkine77 Ahh, thx, much better!