Questions for Evolutionists
by Dr. Kent Hovind

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions.  Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe.  Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.  How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:

a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?)
b) Single-celled animals evolve?
c) Fish change to amphibians?
d) Amphibians change to reptiles?
e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)

a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i) The immune system or the need for it?

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/p253.htm

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere

In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record.  If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms.  Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred!  Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true.  What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts.  A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science.  The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms.  If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined?  how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?  When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)?  When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included?  When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup ", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information?  Evolutionists are masters of speculation.  Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other?  We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution.  A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain?  Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system?  The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from?  Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma?  At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach?  After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach?  Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from?  What about its kidney and bladder?  The animal better not eat anything prior to this.  How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life.  This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details.  My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species?  Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.

Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from?  Did it have a beginning?  Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy.  And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from?  Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so.  He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible".  This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural.  Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with.  This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion.  That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant.  What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

This is an interview of the journey of a former evolutionist to being a scientific biblical creationist.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
by Gary Parker, Ed.D.

Moderator: "Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist."

Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.

As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. "Sin" was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.

With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

* Dr. Gary E. Parker did his doctoral work in biology and geology. He is the author of five widely used programmed instruction books in biology.

http://www.icr.org/article/95/313/

Who then created the creator? if the creator can spring up from no where humans too can spring up from no where? abi?

mazaje:

Who then created the creator? if the creator can spring up from no where humans too can spring up from no where? abi?

The above question is logically invalid; it is just like saying the round square or to who is this bachelor married? or asking me to describe the colours of a rainbow to the person born blind, or rather worst asking me to describe the smell of coffee.

Human beings have a beginning and therefore have a cause while God has no beginning and has no cause.  He is the Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent Being.

Biblical creation scientists tell us that, "Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space.  So time itself would have begun along with matter and space.  Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.  Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning.  This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.  For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible.  So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down."

Space, matter, time, information and human beings have a beginning and therefore have a cause but God is the Uncreated, Eternal, Infinite, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent Created to whom we are all accountable.  He became a man so as to give us the invitation to receive forgiveness of our past guilt and sins, to give us new life for the present and to give us hope for the future in eternity.  Will you face Him as your Saviour and Lord or as Judge?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

This is the Testimony of a former Skeptic:

http://www.icr.org/article/328/313/

Your answered found here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCGz9dMd1Y8

Mr OLAADEGBU

I do not know where to start, your half education on evolution is baffling. That is why i subscribe to the adage half knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge. With your quarter knowledge of evolution you are in a constant flux of confusion, disorientation and intellectual disharmony.

To start to explain evolution to you is like trying to explain Shakespeare to someone who only understands a few words of warri pidgin english, where do u start. To understand evolution you have to have a good grasp of Fundamental Physics, Molecular Biology, Chemistry, anthropology, geology and paleontology. I know it is beyond the grasp of over 99% of nigerians. So Mr. OLAADEGBU stick to your Mesopotamian,Babylonian, and European myths in order to keep your sanity. Leave evolution alone.

I will not try to educate you on evolution but i will tell you that your basic tenet that God (existing before creation and uncreated) suddenly decides to create out of nothing is not a more logical hypothesis that the Big Bang starting out of nothingness ( a mass of energy squeezed into a single point). The difference is that while we are looking for a better explanation for the expanding universe ( the Big Bang is the best at the moment), you people have already found, seen and heard the answer, set in concrete by a masculine (man) God.siting on a golden throne with his son and and angels by his side in this palace court.

One again, forget evolution.

To start to explain evolution to you is like trying to explain Shakespeare to someone who only understands a few words of warri pidgin english,

Ah ahh! Don't underestimate the Waafi tongue. It is a whole lot more sophisticated than you are giving it credit for. In fact I would say that if any nigerian were understand the poetry of Shakespeare it would more likely be those who have similarly lifted the English language (and dialects of it) from mere form or communication to sublime Art form.

Here are the Nine Great 'Proofs' For Evolution: and why they are all false!

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

@Mazaje:

Who then created the creator? if the creator can spring up from no where humans too can spring up from no where? abi?

Of course, does the Creator needed to be created, considering the classification of all entities; Creator and created? Does a driver who is driven needed to be driven by a driver, when he is driven? Is there not truly a single driver in a moving transportation machine? Considering that even in vehicles whereby there is a trainig driver and student driver, or even in trains, aircrafts, etc, there is only one true driver. Finally, there is always one captain in a ship!

Again there is Only a Creator, who creates everything. Since the Creator is not a created, there can not be a creator in His case! And He was fully capable of creating as a Creator before He began to create.

olabowale:

@Mazaje:
Of course, does the Creator needed to be created, considering the classification of all entities; Creator and created? Does a driver who is driven needed to be driven by a driver, when he is driven? Is there not truly a single driver in a moving transportation machine? Considering that even in vehicles whereby there is a trainig driver and student driver, or even in trains, aircrafts, etc, there is only one true driver. Finally, there is always one captain in a ship!

Again there is Only a Creator, who creates everything. Since the Creator is not a created, there can not be a creator in His case! And He was fully capable of creating as a Creator before He began to create.

Oga Pastor, wish ones now? you no go left me alone, I go come cause kasala for you o. You neva go shursh, today na sunday o.

OLAADEGBU, i will not answer the questions you post because it is not worth my time due to its illogical nature, but i will answer the first one which is a question that has hunted the homo species since the development and advancement of the Neocortex.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

The answer is nobody really Knows, and the question is really unknowable. But what we do Know from Edwin Hubble's observation that the furthest objects from us (quasars) are all moving away from us at the speed of light, with us at the center. So he deduced that if we reverse the process( expansion), we would have contraction. So according to him all of space and time would have started from a single point some 15 billion years ago in a big bank, and we are seeing a continuation of that expansion today. So that is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe today. If you have a better more logical explanation, I AM ALL EARS.

Your second and third question is related to the first, because matter was a consequence of the big bang, and the laws of the universe are the laws governing the nature and properties of matter in space-time.

Also matter is not perfectly organised through the universe, if it were then matter would not be able to aggregate to form galaxies, planets and humans. so MATTER IS IMPERFECTLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE UNIVERSE,

The reason i even attempted to answer you is to answer to the misinformation in you link website.

The website said the following;
Evolutionists say that biological life forms change in an “upward” direction, becoming more and more complex, through spontaneous mutation of genetic information. However, the word mutation means by definition “copying error.” A mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from the parents. Mutations are errors in copying the genetic codes.

I am so dumbfounded by this sentence, that i almost threw up, how can people pass such false information.

Evolutionist never and i said never said biological life change in an "upward" direction. Evolution happens in all directions and besides there is nothing like upwards directions or downwards directions. Evolution happens across board and those not fitted to the environment would naturally die out and those more fitted to the environment would naturally thrive. Just like in a corporate organisation, an organisation that cannot change with the prevailing market condition quickly would die, while those that can change would thrive.

In evolution there is nothing like spontaneous mutation, mutation is a continuous process, it happens almost in every birth, the problem is of degree, some mutations are more profound than others. That is why we have albinos, dwarfism, blue, green eyes, and so many other profound and subtle changes in offsprings

Aso mutation is not a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from the parents. There is no structural change in the genetic material, there are only minor(very minor) changes in the arrangement of a few of the amino acids that make up the DNA.

Honestly, i am tired. I do not think i have the time and temperament to debunk all the deliberate falsehood being propagated by your website but i would tell you that evolution does not say creature must change just for the sake of change. Living things evolves according to the environment and nutrition. If an environment is suited perfectly to an organism, it might not evolve for hundreds of millions of years eg.the Blue Whale. But if condition changes and the living thing want to continue surviving then it must evolve fast enough, eg The Mammoth or Dodo.

Please Mr. OLAADEGBU, talk more on how God Created the world in 7 days using word (hebrew i think), Leave Evolution alone, It is not meant for everbody.

@HR.hotness: You missed the point. The following enboldened should have read, thus: Does the driver who is driving need to be driven as a passenger by a driver if he the original driver is driving? Is there not truly a single driver in the moving transport machine/vehicle? Does a driver who is driven needed to be driven by a driver, when he is driven? Is there not truly a single driver in a moving transportation machine? . You should have been able to read between the lines. Why shock and dumbfounded? Now to you, woman, is there a creator of the Creator? I answered, no. Now, you.

The videolink below shows the presentation of a licensed ardent evolutionist scientist who for the most part of 27 years learnt and taught the theory of evolution. This is not for those who have already made up their minds and don't want to be confused with the facts. It is for those who are dilligently and earnestly seeking for the truth and for those who have been questioning the most basic and foundational revealed truth in the book of Genesis especially chapters 1 to 11, and the rest of the scriptures. This website amongst others will make you to discover the evidential proof of the accuracy and authenticity of the Truth Book commonly referred to as the Holy Bible. Click on the link below, sit back and enjoy.

http://www.creationworldview.org/sample.asp

wirinet:

Oga Pastor, wish ones now? you no go left me alone, I go come cause kasala for you o. You never go shursh, today na sunday o.

I no go shurch o. Last night was a late one. But the day is still young.

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

G: What elephant?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research says:

[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.

Author: Daryl E. Witmer of AIIA Institute .

God - an Eternal, Uncreated Being? Find out:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god

@olaadegbu

How did that website link u posted come to the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old? Is it 6000 years old this yr? How many years did adam stay in the garden of eden before he was expelled?

Remember the theory of evolution doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It only says things didnt happen the way we were taught in sunday school

@Wirinet;

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

The answer is nobody really Knows, and the question is really unknowable.

The first sign that should tell an intelligent person that human knowledge is not complete yet and may never be complete in all things. The evolutionist should therefore know that their factoring out God in any process is probably because they lack true and complete knowledge, about the subject matter. Afterall, there are discoveries to be made in the future.

But what we do Know from Edwin Hubble's observation that the furthest objects from us (quasars) are all moving away from us at the speed of light, with us at the center.

A more interesting observation should be, when will these moving objects, reach the end of the road, touching the "heaven," and is there some objects even further away ahead of the quasars, yet we do not know it? Afterall, 200 years ago, quasars were unknown to man. Our knowledge may be really just at infancy yet, comparing that Apollo 14 astronaut just came out that he knows that space beings/aliens do exist.

So he deduced that if we reverse the process( expansion), we would have contraction. So according to him all of space and time would have started from a single point some 15 billion years ago in a big bank, and we are seeing a continuation of that expansion today.

How can big bang (Big means opposite of small) and (Bang is noise/sound), come from such a single point? It seems to me as a small wimper. No great or big sound or noise, bang can come from something that small. What a small, single point potential energy it would have had!

So that is the best theory we have for the creation of the universe today. If you have a better more logical explanation,  I AM ALL EARS.

This is not a theory. At best it is a hypothesis, yet unproven. There is no way a matter that is so small as to probably have only a position, but no size and no significant weight, will produce a bang that can be classified as big. Considering that bang which is a sound can only be heard through a medium which it must travel; air/wind! Sound does not travel in a vacuum, hence you can never hear it, unless the medium of air/wind is present.


Further if it is a known fact that matter can not be created, how then can this pre-big bang material/matter produce all of these varied inumerable non biological and biological materials, known as non living and living things? If the earth is the center of all of these, then tell me how did the alien material, Ferrous, or Iron present in this earth? Make your own research about the possible origin of ferrous material presence on earth.

Your second and third question is related to the first, because matter was a consequence of the big bang, and the laws of the universe are the laws governing the nature and properties of matter in space-time.

Have you ever thought about how did the laws come about? Why is a law so specific to and fits whatever it acts upon? For example egg hatching: If a chicken fertilized egg hatches, you do not find a lizard, or duck, or turkey, etc coming out of it. If it happens, it is an anomally, but not generally the rule, because it will not occur frequently enough for the mind to accept it as a new rule.

Also matter is not perfectly organised through the universe, if it were then matter would not be able to aggregate to form galaxies, planets and humans. so MATTER IS IMPERFECTLY DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE UNIVERSE,

What you have not paid any attention to is that the distribution of matter as you alluded to is not only perfect, but in the position and place and process as the Facilitator, The Designer and The Engineering Originator whated it to be, exactly. As you may think that man for example is formed by evolutionary process, where by it was not a man and was not creatd, it shows your lack of full knowledge of the origin of man. Please remember that you said that no one knows where the space that the matter known as big bang particle came from.



I hereby now submit to you that man is created by his Creator. All material things, known and yet unknown are created by the same Creator who created man. All things have the same origin, Creator. Sometimes in the past, a jamaican friend of mine by the name Mikail came to my home and decided to make dumplings. I do not eat it, so when he prepared the dish, he was making a plate for me, which I flatly rejected. I dont eat turkey or big birds, too. Few weeks later on we went out to a restaurant and i ordered Roti, a caribbean dish.



As I was eating, Mikail from Jamaica smiled and told me, "oh my brother, I can't help to note that you refused dumpling, while you are eating the roti crust! Don't you know that they are made from the flour?" "I knew all of that," was my response. I also do eat bread and pastas. Pasta is even closer to dumpling than roti. I also love pasta, except that my taste bud and what am used to has not allowed dumpling for me. The fact that they are made from the same material does not mean that they are the same thing.



They have different shape, taste, look and names. The same with all things created. Man is different from the named primate that you may thing he evolves from. They are created in their complete entirety, different and separate, in time of creation, having different shape unique to each, with their specific name and characteristics, doman to each, etc.

wirinet:

Mr OLAADEGBU

To understand evolution you have to have a good grasp of Fundamental Physics, Molecular Biology, Chemistry, anthropology, geology and paleontology. I know it is beyond the grasp of over 99% of nigerians.

The greatest Scientist who created all things and knows all the mathematical calculations, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, archeology and history behind the reason why, who, where and how He created all things has in His infinite intelligence revealed this information to us in the book of Genesis, so that a little child can understand it.  That is the evidence of Supreme intelligence.

When Albert Einstein was asked to explain the laws of relativity he said “When you are courting a nice girl, an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour.  That’s relativity”.  If you feel that I have to understand physics, molecular biology, chemistry, anthropology, geology and paleontology before I can grasp what you mean by evolution that gives me the impression that you do not understand it yourself to be able to explain it to a layman.  Albert Einstein said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.  If you can’t explain it in a simplified form you don’t know what you are talking about.  No wonder that evolutionists hide behind such facades that “you need intelligence to understand evolution” and the constant reference to the billions of years as an excuse when you know no one that is that old that was a witness to it.

It was Thomas A. Edison that said “We don’t know a millionth of one percent about anything”.  Albert Einstein also said something similar by saying:  “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has revealed to us”.  What has nature revealed to us?  You can find this in Rom.1:18-20 and for an atheist to make a bold statement that there is no God shows that he is either a fool or has some dubious, devious intentions.

Even the laws of nature shows that life cannot come from non living organisms and that information in a DNA comes from a higher intelligence.  Scientists tell us that the laws of information science reveal that information should have five stages for information to be complete, and these are signal, syntax(code or grammar), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (action) and apobetics (results/goals). This fits in with the creation model in the Bible i.e. Genesis 1-11; Acts 8:27-39; etc.   
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/gitt.asp

Why are there no fossils of rabbits in pre-cambrian or cambrian rocks?

huxley:

Why are there no fossils of rabbits in pre-cambrian or cambrian rocks?

Will I be right if I told you that your forefather was a fish and therefore you are a descendant of Mr fish?

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4f1456031fcc05a3afaf

OLAADEGBU:

Will I be right if I told you that your forefather was a fish and therefore you are a descendant of fish?

Why does something look familiar? Ah, you have not answered the question.

Yes, you would be absolutely right. We are all descended in the very distant past from an aquatic animal, a fish if you like. Do you know what tiktaalik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik) is ?

Or are you too stupid to read up about it?

The good book says "as a man thinks so is he" another philosopher concluded that "a man cannot think crooked and walk straight". The fact that you admit that your forefathers were fish explains why some people think, act and talk like they do.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/07/story-walking-fish

I am completely at lost at what you are trying to achieve, to me you seem so insecure in your beliefs that you desperately need to find any information (mostly lies and half truths) to attack accepted scientific facts and evolution in particular. What you do is surf the net finding any information you can use to attack Evolution, without have a clue of what evolution entails outside the ape turning to man misconception of what evolution is.

So it even griefs me to answer your post, but i do not want other to be misled by your warped understanding of evolution and your absolute dearth of any scientific knowledge.
<quote>
The first sign that should tell an intelligent person that human knowledge is not complete yet and may never be complete in all things. The evolutionist should therefore know that their factoring out God in any process is probably because they lack true and complete knowledge, about the subject matter. Afterall, there are discoveries to be made in the future.
</quote>

Scientist are very aware that knowledge can never be complete, they only strive for better and more knowledge based on observation, experiment and inference. once God can be observed (not subjectively) and Experimented, then an inference of the effect and existence of a God can be factored into science.

<quote>
A more interesting observation should be, when will these moving objects, reach the end of the road, touching the "heaven," and is there some objects even further away ahead of the quasars
</quote>

Science makes inference based on observation and not beliefs or hunches or spiritual insights. So we cannot make inferences of objects further than Quasar because it cannot be observed. It is a pity you are a scientific illiterate because you should know the quasars we are observing is not there as we see it today, as it was some 10 to 15 billions ago, when the universe was young.
<quote>
How can big bang (Big means opposite of small) and (Bang is noise/sound), come from such a single point? It seems to me as a small wimper. No great or big sound or noise, bang can come from something that small. What a small, single point potential energy it would have had!</quote>

Go back to secondary school to study elementary physics, because you lack the basic understanding of the properties of matter. Have you heard of Neutron stars and black holes. A tablespoon of Neutron Star material can weigh as much as the whole earth. Also tiny pinhead black hole can more mass and have more energy than a whole galaxy.

I think you should pay me to teach you basic physics
<quote>
Further if it is a known fact that matter can not be created, how then can this pre-big bang material/matter produce all of these varied inumerable non biological and biological materials, known as non living and living things? If the earth is the center of all of these, then tell me how did the alien material, Ferrous, or Iron present in this earth? Make your own research about the possible origin of ferrous material presence on earth.
</quote>

I about to cry because of the stupidity of your assertions. Who said matter cannot be created? that is 19th century science. You still hold that view after Einstein gave us E = MC2 equation? wonderment shall never end?
Please tell me how Ferrous or iron became alien material to the earth, do u have any idea about the Geological formation of the Earth?
<quote>
What you have not paid any attention to is that the distribution of matter as you alluded to is not only perfect, but in the position and place and process as the Facilitator, The Designer and The Engineering Originator whated it to be, exactly. As you may think that man for example is formed by evolutionary process, where by it was not a man and was not creatd, it shows your lack of full knowledge of the origin of man. Please remember that you said that no one knows where the space that the matter known as big bang particle came from.
</quote>

Is it OLAADEGBU theory that matter is distributed perfectly throughout the universe? Please present a scientific paper presenting you theory. Please explain your meaning of perfect. Also what about position of matter, do you not know that matter (from atoms, through stars to galaxy) are in a state of constant motion, and they do collide with each other.

Also I have a full Knowledge and understanding of the Evolution of Life, including the evolutionary history of the Homo Species, from the Homo Erectus, to homo Habilis to Hamo sapiens. I fully understand the many failed homo species like Neanderthalis and Cro-Magnon, who existed side by side with Homo Sapiens 150,000 to about 100,000 years ago.

Please stop spreading misinformation, falsehood and stupid assertions.

It always a difficult thing replying you. I know you want to justify your beliefs, so you should concentrate on your beliefs and not dabble in area you have little understanding.

OLAADEGBU:

The good book says "as a man thinks so is he" another philosopher concluded that "a man cannot think crooked and walk straight". The fact that you admit that your forefathers were fish explains why some people think, act and talk like they do.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/03/07/story-walking-fish

Never mind my thinking - you have to confront the evidence I have put infront of you, something you seem to be refusing to do. Forget about my pride, honour, thinking (or lack of it), intelligence, etc, etc, etc. I asked a simply question which you have made no attempts at answering;

Why are there no fossils of rabbits in the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian rock?

Don't discuss any of my attributes. This is a simple and plain question quite unrelated to me. Give a go, can you?

I do not need to become a guru in your evolutionary beliefs all I need to do is to tap in to what your fellow evolutionist scientist are saying to have an informed opinion of all your confusion.

Below are confessions and quotes from famous Evolutionists.
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

OLAADEGBU:

I do not need to become a guru in your evolutionary beliefs all I need to do is to tap in to what your fellow evolutionist scientist are saying to have an informed opinion of all your confusion.

Below are confessions and quotes from famous Evolutionists.
http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

This is what is called quote-minding, a trick most beloved of creationist. Can you show a single eminent biologist who disagrees with evolution.

There is much debate in biology about many features of evolution, most notable about the driving force behind evolution. At the moment it is not completely known whether natural selection is the sole driving force behind evolution. There are tens of other issues in evolution about which there is no consensus. What that shameful site is doing is lifting quotes out of context in which scientist are debating the various complex issues about evolution.

There is similar debate in the physic community about gravity and relativity. But does that mean that the theories of gravity and relativity are unsupported?

Let's listen in on an dramatised conversation between a biblical creationist "C" and an evolutionist "E" as they discuss some recent scientific news headlines:

E:  Have you heard about the research findings regarding mouse evolution?

C:  Are you referring to the finding of coat colour change in beach mice?

E:  Yes, isn't it a wonderful example of evolution in action?

C:  No, I think it's a good example of natural selection in action, which is merely selecting information that already exists.

E:  Well, what about antibiotic resistance in bacteria?  Don't you think that's a good example of evolution occurring right before our eyes?

C:  No, you seem to be confusing the terms "evolution" and "natural selection."

E:  But "natural selection" is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.

C:  Natural selection doesn't drive molecule-to-man evolution; you are giving natural selection a power that it does not have - one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecule-to-man-evolution requires.  But natural selection simply can't do that because it works with information that already exists.

Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.  The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two.

When discussing natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution, it is important to define terms. Evolutionists and biblical creationists view these terms differently, but it comes down to how we interpret the evidence in the light of our foundation. I view natural selection using The Truth Book as my foundation, evolutionists use man's truth as their foundation.

The creationist view of natural selection is supported biblically and scientifically. Natural selection is a God-ordained process that allows organisms to survive in a post-Fall, post-Flood world. It is an observable reality that occurs in the present and takes advantage of the variations within the 'kinds' and works to preserve the genetic viability of the 'kinds'. Genesis 1:21-24

Simply put, the changes that are observed today show variation within the created kind, which is a horizontal change. For a molecules-to-man evolutionary model, there must be a change from one kind into another-- a vertical change. This is simply not observed. We have never seen a bacterium like H. pylori give rise to something like a dog. Instead, we simply observe variations within each created kind.

Evolution requires an increase in information that results in a directional movement from molecules to man. Natural selection cannot be a mechanism for evolution because it results in a decrease in information and is not directional. Speciation may occur as a result of natural selection, but it only occurs within a kind. Therefore, it is also not a mechanism for evolution but rather supports the biblical model as recorded in the book of Genesis.

Natural selection cannot be the driving force for molecule to man evolution when it does not have that power, nor should it be confused with molecules-to man-evolution. Natural selection is an observable phenomenon that preserves genetic viability and allows limited variation within a kind - nothing more, nothing less.QED

It is a great confirmation of the Bible's history. So I praise the Lord for the uncompromising biblical creationist scientists that have used their knowledge and understanding of science to discover and properly interprete the truth that was already written in the Truth book.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53