hey calling all evolutionist could you ansew me a question?

Question

# Where did the space for the universe come from?
# Where did matter come from?
# Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
# How did matter get so perfectly organized?
# Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
# When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
# When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
# With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
# 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 surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
# How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

i ask these question to prove that evolution is hypothesis and really have no validity

basically:
Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" Is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science. Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Answer 1

That goes to show that God's still #1. It's simple "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Answer 2

# Where did the space for the universe come from?
# Where did matter come from?
These two are unaswerable as they precede Planck time.

# Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
# How did matter get so perfectly organized?
# Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
Crytals form as energy is lost. The organization is a fact of the cooling after the big bang.

# When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
There are a number of plausible explanation, but none have been demonstrated.

# When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
That's the definition of life.

# With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
At first, sex was a gene. If you had the gene, you could exchange genetic information with other cells. F-plasmids still allow this behavior.

# 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 surviv e, or the species? How do you explain this?)
You should have put "want" in quotes. Reproduction is the hallmark of life. Without it there would be no plants.

# How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
The genetic code is universal, made of four letters (ACGT) in three letter words. You are saying that ACT can't be rearranged to cat.

Try as you might to make it sound confusing, science explains things well and scientists know the limits of their knowledge.

Answer 3

Scientists are the first to admit that thet don't know all of the answers. They know a thousand times more now that they did a hundred years ago, and more is being learned every day.
The answer to your questions are the same whether you believe in evolution or creation. for instance.
Where did the matter come from ? If the evolutionists can't answer the question, ask the creationists. Where did your "God" get the material?
You're hinting that your 'God" is capable of doing all that you question. The church teaches that God is almighty ( able to do anything ) . The same churches make a really sick feeble explaination of all the disease, misery, starvation, wars, poverty, murder, that thke place in this wonderful world that he rigged up.
I'm sure you don't mind my asking you, where did God get the material to build the world, and all the planets, thousands of times larger than the world ? How did he transport the material ? Have any parts of the wagons ( or whatever ) been found ?
You mentioned first cell reproduction. Maybe that's like virgins having babies.
How did life come from non-living matter ? What's your explaination.? Do you go along with the idea that some guy made a body out of mud, and blew his breath on it, and abba-ka-dabra there's a man ? Sounds logical, doesn't it ?
Now give your explaination of how new varieties came about. Did what's-his-name make more mud models and blow on them ?
When questioning evolution, be sure to give the religious version. The scientific answers are not always clear or not yet complete, while the church answers are real laughable.

Answer 4

a.) don't know - not an evolutionary question
b.) ibid
c.) ibid
d.) ibid
e.) ibid
f.) One of the most enduring theories for this is the RNA world hypothesis in which RNA was the first genetic molecule. RNA 'ribozymes' have been shown to be catalytically active. The problem is the RNA is not very stable and so DNA was longer lasting (there is only an OH -> H difference between RNA and DNA), thus DNA became the genetic material.
g.) This is a good question, to which I don't know the answer but I postulate that, because bacteria use protrusions to transfer genetic material, that once multi-cellular life-form came to be, certain cells were devoted to passing genetic information and this just got more complex as the organism became more complex.
h.) Bacteria pass genetic information and they are the simplist life-forms (debatable)
i.) The more offspring one has, the more chance of survival. Also, plants generally don't feed their young.
j.) It's funny you mention Chinese characters because Japanese character evolved out of them. Mutations in DNA can improve the catalytic activity of an enzyme, make it worse or have no effect. (This is done routinely in some labs - Evolution is Science!) So for example, on a gross scale, a mutation which allows for better binding of oxygen to haemoglobin would allow an organism to run for longer and thus is more likely to escape prey and pass this advantage onto its offspring.

Hope these helped!

Edit - and as for the beer and sport link - I'm a climber and there is definitely a link! To the pub...

Answer 5

1. beer and sports have a lot in common. it's the beverage of choice for many spectators. deal.

2. if you do not believe in evolution how does the world change? chemicals in the ecosystem change the ecosystem that has been proven. and just because we don't have all the answers now doesn't mean that we never will. people once thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. we know better now and as science develops we will discover new and different things

Answer 6

That is absolutely assinine. Plants and animals reproduce to further their species, which is evolutionarily more important than the competition it creates. If you new anything about DNA, RNA and amino acids, you would see very clearly how mutations can change things. It is not like comparing english to chinese, it is like comparing the word 'dog' to the word 'god'. You are basically asking unanswerable questions so that people will say 'we do not know where the universe came from', but I could ask you the same thing. You would probably say, 'god created the universe'. I might ask then, where did god come from? You would probably say he has always been there, but that is not really an answer. I could simply say the same thing about the universe. How did it start, the big bang. How did that start? Likely the universe collapsed on itself and created this one, and so on and so forth in a repeating cycle that has always existed. You say god always existed, I say the universe has always existed. How is that different? There ae answers to all of your questions, but it would seem like a waste of time to further elaborate.

Answer 7

I see you were nice enough to ask the exact same question twice,was this to try and get the exact same answers twice,or are you just that pathologically in need of attention and affirmation of your viewpoints? At leat you didn't get 18 thumbs down on this one yet,I guess it's all in how you ask the question. And thanks for the earlier email,it shows you to be the exact kind of Christian I thought you were,the whole guess we will see in the end who's right part is so unique and thought provoking. Was that the same old "when you're in Hell you will know I was right" horseshit Christians are always spouting. Not a very good way to shore up your argument,in fact it's a little childish,not to mention vindictive,not very Christian of you wishing ill upon your fellow man. Oh wait I'm wrong that's what Christianity is and always has been about since they started murdering pagans in about the 2nd century ad,my bad.

AD

Answer 8

I agree with October. Not to get on a rant or anything but if you're a scientist, you should know the difference between hypothesis and theory. Both very basic terms taught in the fifth grade. Yes evolution is just a theory. It's to be proven or disproven. That's the whole idea of science, TO LEARN. To say God did it and he's always been there is a cop-out. It's just an excuse to stop asking questions.

Answer 9

Every question here has an answer that 100% supports evolution, what's more it also disproves creationism. I wish I had more time right now, I'll get back to you later.
-----------------------------
I'm back - now it's later and see if you can follow this logic.
Can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.

The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.

However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. Indeed, if we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.

So,
#1 - #5. Everything, the universe, space, matter, energy, Everything came from a massless, energyless, formless, void. You can't call it nothing, nothing implies a lack of something. It is THE point of singularity infinitly small. It all came from not nothing, but NO THING. And it is accelerating and expanding to NO THING. From NO THING came matter and anti-matter. From matter and anti-matter came everything else. From the Big Bang to the Big Freeze. If you add all of the positive and negative energy, mass, forces, whatever you can think of, the sum will add up to ZERO. So it is perfect. Everything is perfect the way it is. Otherwise it wouldn't be the way it is. It would be the way it is supposed to be. Get it?

#6 - #10. Life happened because there was a potential for it to happen. You've heard, "If something can go wrong, it will go wrong." - Well, the opposite is also true, "If something can go 'right', it will go 'right'." It just depends on what your ego wants to call wrong or right. These rules are not mutually exclusive. Maybe someone thinks the moon is not perfect because he thinks it should be purple with orange stripes. Extrapolate that out to choosing which christmas tree is better. They are all perfect - your ego is in your way. Life and everything about it happened because there was a potential for it - it's that simple.

If you get your Ego out of the way you will realize, Everything IS.

Answer 10

You are absolutely correct. Evolution is not science, it is a dogma. No matter what scientific observation shows, people, including scientists who should know better cling to this metaphysical belief. 2+2 =4, but given millions of years, 2+2 will equal 5!
Every species reproduces its kind, but given millions of years, it will start reproducing something else. Has this ever been observed? Can it be repeated? Is it falsifiable?
The fact is there is no scientific explanation for the origin of life, or any of the other phenomena listed.
Let's start thinking for ourselves. A little skepticism is good.

Answer 11

You didn't come in here with these questions to actually find out answers, you posted them in a clumsy effort to discredit virtually the whole of science with a lot of "Huh? Huh?? HUH???". People lilke you are ignorant and annyoing. Go away.