Creation and Evolution - 4 Fundamental Questions

4 fundamental questions to ask a creationist. These will help you circumnavigate a long and fruitless debate, because creationists usually want to get into specifics, when in reality creationism fails at the word go.

If any creationist feels he or she can answer these questions and still believe creationism is valid, feel free to reply in the comments or make a response video. I might make a compilation video if any answers are good and worth replying to.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• evolution
• creationism
• science
• questions
• debate
• tip
• creationist
• id
• intelligent design
• evolutionist
• scientific

[smaakjeks]

@GoodScienceForYou

I've given you many chances to respond with actual arguments, but you cannot or will not get into ANY details. You instead reduce your responses to pure insult. I'm tired of having my comment section spammed by you. I've now blocked you. Somehow I think you will take that as a badge of honor. Well, congratulations.

[smaakjeks]

@tehonlyway

"there is fossilized proof of a deer with an arrow in it in pre-cambrian rock. How did that get there?"

It didn't. There is no such fossil. There are in fact no authentic, anachronistic fossils. They all are found in the pattern predicted by evolution. Heck, look into the Tiktaalik find for a perfect example of evolution predicting a fossil before it was found, in exactly the strata it was predicted.

Have you looked into the observed speciation events yet?

[smaakjeks]

@118unashamed

You want examples of application of evolution not relating to evolution? Variation and selection (for a specific goal) has been tried and found useful. There are at least two examples I can think of in my state of Xmas related drunkenness. One involving the shape of a muzzle on a hose (for most effective spraying), and one relating to water transport through canals. When I sober up I might be able to find the specifics on those examples. Until then: happy holidays!

[118unashamed]

@smaakjeks When engineers are simulating different situations they do make stabs into the unknown with the hopes of finding more effective models HOWEVER these stabs have a great deal of intelligence and thought behind them. There is absolutely nothing that is completely random, and completely random is what we see in evolution. Also the changes that engineers make are linked together in which many of those links are deeply though out. Darwinian changes are not linked but totally independent.

[118unashamed]

@smaakjeks All your biological areas relate to evolution and what i was looking for was those things NOT related to evolution. Sorry if i was unclear. As for your statement about engineering, I have 2 brothers who are engineers one mechanical and one computer based. Implementing any random variation to a design project or any problem for that matter would certainly counterproductive. I can see however what you are saying.

[smaakjeks]

@118unashamed

Evolution explains all of life, or at least all of its adaptations (in such fields as ethology, physiology, developmental biology, molecular biology, microbiology, medicine, population dynamics, neurology and ecology). I would think that'd be enough. Engineers have also been able to apply random variation and selection in simulations to create more efficient solutions to their problems.

[118unashamed]

@smaakjeks Any area other than Darwinian theory in which random variation and stochastic shuffle has provided anything useful. A few domains you might consider might be linguistics, computer algorithms.... anything really

[smaakjeks]

@118unashamed

Also, yes, we can mimic evolutionary adaptation with computer simulations.

[smaakjeks]

@118unashamed

Again, I don't know what you mean by domain, and I don't know what you mean by meaningful.

[smaakjeks]

@118unashamed

We are talking about the quality of evidence here. Let's say, for sake of argument, that evolution is real. By your admission, you would never be able to accept it since the evidence required for you to accept it is beyond approach. You have in other words priced yourself out of the market.

With regard to the definition of species, that is actually a reflection of the continuous changes in populations that is a consequence of evolution.

[118unashamed]

@smaakjeks Perhaps one question from you if you don't mind. Give me a domain where random variation and stochastic shuffle has given anything meaningful. And this is outside of the domain in which we are considering it (Darwinian theory). If no domain exists this does not necessarily disprove the Darwinian position, however it leaves us in a position when we know even less than we though we knew to start with (which isn't much to begin with).

[118unashamed]

@smaakjeks The theory of gravitation is adequate because it is grounded in mathematics and can be simulated in a computer which brings flawless results. If we took the theory of gravitation and applied it to computer programing and saw that the planets did not orbit the sun in well defined conic sections we would have a big problem with our understanding of gravity. Unfortunately we cannot do anything like that in biology. We can't even define a species.