pardon me for thinking

“The important thing is to not stop questioning.”

~ Albert Einstein

1) We’re told that the overall disorder (entropy) of the universe tends to increase. This is a fundamental law: things fall apart. But how could the universe always be moving toward general disorder? Wouldn’t this suggest that, were we to look back farther and farther in time, we would see greater and greater orderliness?

The “erosion” of the organization of matter and energy over billions of years would require an extremely organized universe to begin with. Doesn’t this directly contradict the Big Bang and every other origin theory, which propose that the universe’s many structures (planets, stars, galaxies) became organized over time “from the bottom up”?

#1 discussion

* * *

2) Within a universe governed by the general tendency toward disorder (entropy), how could the immense complexity of life emerge over time? We’re told that some pockets of order may be balanced out by other (greater) pockets of disorder. Yet it seems impossible that any degree of disorder, no matter how great, could balance out the utter neural intricacy of the human brain. Each individual neuron migrates to its predesignated position as the whole brain develops in the womb. How could such an incredible spike of orderliness evolve anywhere in a universe characterized by entropy?

#2 discussion

* * *

3) We’re told that the fossil record is rife with evolutionary evidence. So where are all the transitional forms? We find no earlier forms of Triceratops or Tyrannosaurus rex, no earlier forms of butterflies, dragonflies, sharks or sea turtles – and that’s just for starters.

To quote “the oldest truth of paleontology,” according to celebrated Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould,

… the vast majority of species appear fully formed in the fossil record and do not change substantially during the long period of their later existence.

If evolution occurred over millions of years, why is the fossil record silent on transitions between species?

There’s always the punctuated equilibrium theory, which states that we don’t have evidence of transitional forms because the transitions happened too fast to leave any evidence behind. But science demands evidence. How can Darwinists make the scientific claim that all animals evolved from one another if the fossil record contains no evidence that this actually occurred?

#3 discussion

* * *

4) We’re told that evolution occurred through genetic mutations that gave some animals survival advantages over others. But mutations are errors in genetic information – how can they be favorable? At best they’re only benign; often they cause genetic disorders.

Over 4.4 billion years, Darwinists explain, odds are that some mutations would wind up being beneficial. But science demands evidence, not speculation. Out of Earth’s entire history, can they identify even one specific case of a genetic mutation actually resulting in a survival advantage?

#4 discussion

* * *

5) ANSWERED by limejelly on 28 Mar 06. See discussion.

* * *

6) We’re told that, in response to changes in their environments, animals evolved complex brains and bodies in order to survive. So why are some animals so much more complex than others?

We all share the same environment. If a barnacle or worm could survive for billions of years without a central nervous system, why would a fish need to develop one? Why did some fish need to become sharks in order to survive, if the rest didn’t?

And if the shark is so perfectly adapted to its environment, why would yet other animals evolve differently – becoming, for example, mammalian dolphins with complex brains? Or becoming human beings, when barnacles and worms are still thriving today?

#6 discussion

* * *

7) We’re told that genetic errors accumulated over time, improving animals’ ability to compete for food. Typically, the more complex the animal, the higher its position in its food chain. But food chains are pyramids, with smaller populations at the higher stages – and smaller populations mean fewer chances for positive genetic errors to occur.

Moreoever, species higher up in their food chains generally have lifespans longer than those below, widening the intervals between generations and thus slowing down the rate of potentially positive genetic errors. Dozens of insect generations appear in the time it takes one human generation to reach sexual maturity – and each insect generation is vastly more populous than that of humans.

How, then, could enough positive genetic errors occur in humans to make our brain complexity exceed that of insects by so many orders of magnitude? To coin a new term, Darwinists ignore an inherent probability drag: as complexity in an organism increases, the longer it takes to reach sexual maturity and the smaller its population, yielding fewer and fewer opportunities for the probabilities against beneficial genetic mutation to be overcome.

And by the way — why wouldn’t similar mutations over the same timespan have made insects just as intelligent?

#7 discussion

* * *

8) Amino acids can’t form themselves into proteins or DNA without help. Darwinists know this – so we’re told that life on Earth may have been seeded by a meteor from Mars. Martian rocks containing small organisms were kicked up by meteors and flung into outer space, where the life inside was frozen until finally crashing on Earth and thawing, thus giving evolution a headstart.

It’s a farfetched theory. To prove they’re serious, Darwinists show us photos of a meteorite from Mars with imprints that look like bacteria fossils. Then they spend billions of taxpayer dollars to find water (the basis of life) on Mars.

Aren’t they simply passing the buck? If amino acids can’t form themselves into proteins or DNA on Earth, how could they do so on Mars?

A young girl once asked her father what held up the Earth, and he answered, “An elephant.” Then she asked what held up the elephant, and he answered, “A tortoise.” What, then, holds up the tortoise? If life on Earth came from Mars, where did life on Mars come from?

#8 discussion

* * *

9) We’re told that life on Earth may have been seeded by aliens. Of course we’ve never found evidence of aliens, so there’s no way to verify this claim, nor to determine how alien life might have originated all by itself. Science is about observation and evidence, but let’s ignore this for the moment and talk about probabilities.

Darwinists spend millions of taxpayer dollars every year on SETI (the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), scanning for intelligent signals from beyond. There’s sure to be life out there, we’re told – look at the odds. The Drake equation estimates that, out of the three hundred billion or so stars in our galaxy, a certain number must have planets, a certain number of which must be able to support life, a certain number of which must have developed intelligent life. A little math predicts five thousand evolved forms of intelligence – right in our own Milky Way! We’ve been listening for their signals for over forty years.

So, to quote physicist Enrico Fermi, where is everybody? What are the odds that every one of those five thousand alien species is less evolved than we are, lacking the ability to respond to our signals?

Doesn’t the deafening silence in the cosmos, despite such overwhelming odds in favor of extraterrestrial intelligence, suggest that we are alone?

Further, doesn’t it suggest that the universe doesn’t support the evolution of life?

#9 discussion

* * *

10) We’re told that researchers have unearthed a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil with bones that contain soft tissue, including red blood cells. So millions of years can assemble a complex predatory dinosaur, but can’t even decompose its flesh?

#10 discussion

* * *

11) When a prominent scientist like Reiner Protsch (Frankfurt University) makes a name for himself by fabricating the age of human fossils, publishing claims up to one hundred times older than actual estimates, who in the scientific community is responsible for revising all the subsequent studies and conclusions based on that research? Who is responsible for ensuring that corrections appear in all newspapers? Who is responsible for revising all of the school textbooks and videos, the museum displays and movie quotes that have been teaching our children fabrications?

#11 discussion

* * *

12) We’re told that evolution is fact, not theory – but Darwinists can’t explain and have no evidence for how many animal functions evolved, like the incendiary defense of the bombardier beetle.

If evolution cannot account for the development of even one animal function, doesn’t that reduce it from fact to theory, and reintroduce the possibility of a Designer?

We’re told that the concept of a Creator must be eliminated according to Occam’s Razor (explanations should use the fewest necessary elements). But aren’t Darwinists taking a leap of faith, eliminating the possibility of a Designer before proving that a Designer isn’t necessary?

Equally applicable are the following anti-razors:

Chatton: “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.”

Kant: “The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished.”

Menger: “Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy.”

#12 discussion

* * *

13) We’re told that school curriculums must not allow evolution to be questioned. Why not? Don’t questions help us learn?

At its best, science should foster critical thinking. Why would we want to indoctrinate our children without training them to think?

#13 discussion

* * *

14) We’re told that evolution is science. But science is supposed to be observable and reproducible. How can scientists observe an event that occurred in the past? How can they reproduce one as broad as a planet?

Evolution seems less like science and more like forensic investigation, which only uses scientific tools in an attempt to reconstruct the past.

Why not be honest, and acknowledge the distinction between operational science, which we can observe and reproduce today (physics, chemistry, biology), and evolutionary theory, which makes educated guesses about the past?

#14 discussion