What follows is some of the questions I had prepared to ask my evolutionary opponent in my recent debate.
Are you familiar with the word "genome"? For those of you who are unfamiliar, genome is the word biologists use to describe the entire genetic code in a living thing. It is what is found encoded in it's DNA. For evolution to be true it requires genetic mutations that cause genome information to increase. Let me be specific here, I am not talking about an increase in the chances of survival because that can come through a loss of information.
Question 1: Has there ever been a genetic mutation observed where it has increased the genome information?
The world's most famous evolutionist got asked this question and this is what he had to say . . .
Question 2: How can DNA develop through evolutionary processes?
Question 3: Where did life come from?
Once again, here is Dawkins' "scientific speculations" on the subject during an interview with Ben Stein . . .
Unfortunately this video cannot be embedded onto my blog but it can be viewed here and is well worth the watch for its comedic elements alone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FTyZ732lQ
Question 4: "Haeckel's Embryos"
Do you recognize this picture? Perhaps you have seen it in one of your modern scientific text books. Can you tell me if it is a drawing or a picture? Do you know why it is a drawing? Because this is a completely fraudulent attempt to show fabricated similarities between a wide variety of living things at the embryonic stage. It is a fraud that was exposed over 100 years ago. Haeckel even confessed to it. My question is why is this fake picture still allowed in scientific text books?
Michael K Richardson, Professor of Evolutionary Developmental Zoology at Leiden University said:
This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't ... These are fakes.' (Michael Richardson, in an interview with Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, August 11, 1997. )
Question 5: How can something as complex as an eye evolve?
For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In the same way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then the eye will dry up and go blind within a few hours. How could an eye evolve when it requires all 40 parts to be working or it cannot function?
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
Do you know who said that?
Charles Darwin (From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY "Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication).
The only difficult part in preparing questions for my opponent were which ones to leave out considering there are so many. Evolution is a theory about as watertight as my screen door!
Go On To Part 12
Go Back To Part 10
Go Back To Part 1
Monotheism Is Not Enough
10 hours ago