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.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
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 occ urred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
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?
When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Sea horses evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
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.)?
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
It is all they have been taught.
They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren’t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn’t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!
Some (especially miseducated critics) refer to macro and microevolution. There is no such thing. Evolution is evolution. Fruit flys, rats, frogs, etc., have all been observed undergoing character change in laboritories, resulting in the inability to mate with other members of the base species (the control), thus forming a new species. Several examples of so-called macroevolution (the change at a genus level) have been observed by biologists in the rain forest. Furthermore, good fossil evidence shows transition between genera, and even higher taxanomic orders (incorrectly called Kingdom, Phylum, etc. - current work in phylogentic taxonomy does away with Linnean ranks). Representatives of higher order change in the fossil record includes change with fish, fish to amphibians, with amphibians, within reptiles, "reptiles" to dinosaurs, within dinosaurs, dinosaurs to "birds", within "birds", "reptiles" to mammals, within mammals, and other mammals to humans. I am not mentioning invertebrates here, as I do not deal with them in my line of work. See current molecular and physical phylogenetic phylogenies in Nature, Science, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., all of which are peer reviewed, something most parties who oppose evolution will not do (publish in peer-reviewed journals).
Evolution has nothing to do with The Big Bang - that is astronomy, not biology.
The synthysis and subsequent radiation and adaptation of life is a wonderful and beautiful thing, and far more complex than the, "We don't look like fish, so can't have evolved," argument presented by many whom view evolution/natural selection as the work of the devil.
2. The theory that species give rise to other species. This process of speciation can be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which must result in two (or more) populations becoming genetically isolated. This can be accomplished physically (allopatry and peripatry) or through division of patch types or through behavioral mechanisms (sympatry). This has been observed at low taxonomic levels. For instance, wheat is a modern species resulting from 2 instances of non-disjunction and one hybridization event that all occurred within the last 5000 years. The original plant has been identified from seeds from tombs in Egypt.
The creation of new higher level taxa is often referred to as macroevolution by non-scientists, but this usage is incorrect. The only difference between the origins of higher taxa and species is time. Today's species will eventually give rise to genera as they continue to diverge from their sister-taxa and continue to speciate themselves. All higher taxa were once just a species. Macroevolution properly refers to selection that operates above the species level, such as the selective pressure across the K-T boundary on gastropods which favored genera (but not species) with wide geographic ranges.
I'll note that theory is the most certain science ever is. In this case, it means that over the last century and a half, plus the observations from before the theory's proposal, no evidence has been found that contradicts the theory of evolution. By the same token, gravity is a theory, and thermodynamics is a theory. 'Law' is just scientific shorthand for a theory that no one thinks will ever be disproved, and may soon be applied to evolution.
2. The fossil sequence of horses is an excellent example of evolution
2. In everyday speech: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2. It is interesting to note the evolution in computers over the years.