More Questions.

Fri, 18 Aug 95 13:26:00 CDT

If you consider yourself a "logically" thinking person then would you mind
answering these?

1.Something from nothing?
The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the
universe, states that everything
developed from a small dense cloud of hydrogen gas which exploded.
Where did this gas come from? How
reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if
it did come into being, what would
cause it to explode?

We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead
to disorder. How reasonable is
it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect -
increasing order and the formation of
useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

2.Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws,
such as electromagnetic forces,
gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. How reasonable is it to
say that these great ordering principles
created themselves by accident from nothing?

3.Order from disorder?
The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of
science. It states that systems become
more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to
create order. Evolution says that the
opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any
directed energy. How can this be?

4.Life from dead chemicals?
Evolution claims that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), even
though it is a biological law
("Biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the
simplest imaginable replicating system
forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be
so very small as to be essentialy zero -
much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles
that could fit in the entire visible universe!
Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

5.Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA
(the "plan") and RNA (the "copy
mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is
it to believe that these two
co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the
same time?

6.Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and
planning that went into landing a
man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to
the complexity of even the simplest
life form. How reasonable is it to believe that the process of
evolution, which has no designer, no
intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.

7.Where are the transitional fossils?
If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the
skeletons of countless transitional
forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a few
transitional candidates are touted as
proof of evolution. An evolutionist has stated that all of the proof
for evolution could fit inside a single coffin. If
evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And
why does the fossil record actually
show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly
identical to current instances of the species?

8.Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be
gradual. And don't forget that "natural
selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed
an advantage of some sort. How
could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive
(and why would it ever be selected
for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or
its new environment? Can you even
imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature
from one kind to another, all the while
keeping it not only alive, but improved.

9.Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an
(unguided) series of small changes, caused by
mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over
a very long period of time. How could
the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can
you even imagine a theoretical scenario
which would allow this to happen?

10.Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the
first plant survive unless it already
possessed this remarkable capability?

11.How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic"
relationship (they need each other
to survive). How can evolution explain this?

12.It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful
until it is complete, whether it be a
car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start
to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing
(or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it
was completed?

13.Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the
caterpillar evolves into the "mass of
jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be

14.It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural
things from a simple gas, surely this
mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its
existence in a matter of weeks or days, if
not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of
fruit flies with radiation for several
decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only
produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How
reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the
simplest of experiments has not been able to
document it?

15.Complex things require intelligent design.
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a
robot which could cross all types of
terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight,
found its own energy sources, could make
more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would
marvel at this achievement. All of our life's
experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by
accident, or assemble itself by
chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each
other. And we are certain beyond doubt
that a canister of hydrogen gas, not matter how long we left it there
or what type of raw energy we might
apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we
already have such a "robot" - it is
called an "ant", and we squish them because they are "nothing" compared
to people. And God made them,
and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?

In Him,

The above questions were down loaded from> <because I was to lazy to write
my own.