Questions: Atheist, evolutionists, and old earthers refuse to answer

Share this page!

Having debated many Evolutionists, I have heard just about everything (every answer to questions posed). As one Solomon said: “there is nothing new under the sun”. And I find several questions that Evolutionists will refuse to answer. They will either:

1) Change the subject.
2) Dodge the question.
3) Ignore the question
4) Act stupid (I don’t understand what you are asking).

The goal of these tactics is to always make those whom disagree with them to work harder at answering their question, and always hold their debate opponents to a higher standard then they hold themselves to.

When it would be better just to say: I don’t know. But because Evolutionists can never be wrong, “I don’t know” is not a thought that would ever cross their minds. I can count on one hand how many times I have heard an evolutionist say: I don’t know. So the egotistical response is from that list above.

What are some of the question they refuse to answer?

Before I begin, I must point out that some of the questions are not concerning biology. The Evolutionist will claim that because of this, it does not apply. Which would be wrong. Any support mechanism, idea or theory, that has to exist in order for evolution to work does apply. Like the millions of years required. So complain as they will, it just shows their desperation to keep a theory on top. When true proven facts should be able to hold their own on their own merit (evidence).

  1. Where did matter come from? In order for Evolution to work, all things are required to be explained “naturally” . And there is no natural explanation for matter just existing for no reason and no source. If you use deductive logic, what you end up with is that matter had to always exist. Which means there is an eternal dimension, which could contain matter and possible eternal beings. But science is not allowed to explore such possibilities because God is not allowed. So an answer is not really within their grasp.
  2. Where did the laws that govern our universe come from, and how were they balanced to work together? They cannot even begin to answer this question. Why? Because it would require them to ponder intelligence. That too is not allowed in science. In fact they don’t even know what laws are because you first have to define them as a substance in order to make them to come into existence naturally. But because laws do not exist in this state, there will never be an answer.
  3. Why does all matter date differently? In order for age dating to be “really accurate”, all matter should date back to its source. And according to the big bang, that source was over 10 billion years ago. Because if it all came from a dot, then it all should date back to that dot. But instead, what we see is that matter all around us dates differently. Now before anyone e-mails me, I do know how dating markers are left. I am just showing that those dating markers do not really tell how long that matter, being dated, actually existed.
  4. How do you compress all matter in the universe into a dot? In order for this to even be pondered to work, all the laws of physics have to be broken. Example: If you are debating someone who believes this happened, ask them to take a glass of water and compress it into a dot without making phase into anything else first in order to do it. You see even gas will phase into liquid if enough pressure is applied. But how do you get liquid to compress? How do you get a solid to compress? Science claims that extreme gravity will accomplish this. We have perfect examples of things that have enormous amounts of gravity (black holes, stars, and huge planets), yet not one that contains a large amount of matter is the size of a dot. When they compress a glass of water into a dot, show me. But the laws of physics won’t allow them to or it would have already been done.
  5. How does Evolution work around the immune system? The reason Evolutionist won’t address the immune system, is because the immune system actually fights change. They have no idea even where to begin to explain this. And what’s worse is that animal immune systems are stronger than humans. Which means the animal immune system will fight change even harder. How sensitive is the immune system? A person who gets an organ transplant often times cannot receive one from a family member. Now this would be change within the same species yet the immune system won’t allow it. In fact, the person receiving the transplant will have to take immune suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. To stop would mean certain death.
  6. The human body has 10 interdependent systems that are required for life. Which one of these systems appeared first and how did it work until the others evolved? There is not one system in the human body that can exist without the other systems being in place. All systems work to one goal and that is to allow life. The usual evolutionist answer is: They all evolved at exactly the same time. The possibility of this is not even calculable. This is because each system has a different complexity, which means each system would require a different number of mutations to have evolved. And mutations take time, and the more that is required, the more time is required. And there is nothing in the evidence currently observed that shows any part of evolution has perfect timing.
  7. Why only use percentages when talking about the differences between Chimps and Humans? To get a percent you first have to have numbers to work from. Ever wonder why the numbers are “always” hidden? In fact if you ask a Evolutionist what the numbers are instead of the percentage, they won’t be able to tell you because they have not been told themselves. And just to show this point more, ask them to provide a book where the numbers that the percentage came from is even printed. It is hidden from the public for a reason. The human genome has over 3 billion base pairs. That would work out to be 30 million base pair differences in One whole percent (1%), And 300 million differences in 10%. So 1/10th (.1%) of a percent would equal 3 million (3,ooo,ooo) difference. And 2/10th (.2%) is 6 million differences. So 99% the same equals 30 million (30,000,000) differences. And 98% the same equals 60 million (60,000,000) differences. And as mentioned earlier, the immune system would fight such changes. Knowing how sensitive the immune system is, and now knowing the actual differences, how slow would the changes need to be so the immune system would not react? It would mean there would have to be at least 6 million missing links. Now what is the common excuse for not providing the actual numbers instead of just percentages? The public is too stupid to understand how evolution works. I have actually been told this. so basically the public is too stupid to understand simple math that shows evolution won’t work.
  8. Why the fossil record has life-form complexity even in the lowest layers? Evolution is supposed to be about simple life evolving into complex life. Yet complexity exists in the lowest layers. Example: The Trilobite and Nautilus both have fully formed organs and systems. There is no evolution tree to them showing how they evolved such complexity, and there is no evolution tree from them showing what they were evolving into. Basically the fossil record shows that these life-forms appeared on the scene all prepared with complexity ready to survive. In fact they are both also living fossils (alive today) basically unchanged. Complexity in the lowest layers shows that the fossil record support the flood. The Bible says that the Flood started by the fountains of the deep breaking up. What that means is that the bottom dwellers, complex and simple, got buried first. And that is exactly what we see. Then the mid ways dweller of the ocean, then the near top dwellers, then land animals. Which is exactly what we see.
  9. How would they explain perfect placement of our planet and solar system? Perfect placement of the planet to where it can support life is called the Habital Zone(link). The variables include: 5 types of stars which would change the distance the earth could be from the sun and be inhabitable. And whether the star is stable. The solar system placement is called the Galactic Habital Zone(link). Our solar system is just in the right place in our Galaxy, that does not have much dust, so we can see all the stuff the Hobble Telescope (link) takes pictures of. It is also located just right so we don’t receive harmful radiation to the degree it would kill us.
  10. How the earth, sun and moon are the correct sizes and distances to create a perfect total eclipse? As vast as space is, how do you get 3 objects at the right distances and size, to create a total eclipse so perfect that you are able to see the sun’s outer atmosphere? You see first the sun has to be a star that is stable (a Red Drawf star), which means a certain size as well. Then the earth has to be in the habital zone so that it can support life. Then the moon has to be a certain size and distance to cover the sun perfectly. And not be to close to our planet so that it’s gravity does not cause earthquakes with every orbit. This is because
    of the Inverse Square Law (link). Which say that 2 objects with gravity get closer, the pull of gravity between them quadruples. So sizes, correct position for life, gravity and inverse square law a factor, to create the perfect eclipse.
  11. Why being related is only referred to as common ancestor? The very thing that makes all life on this planet related, is the “common template” (RNA, DNA) that all life has. But instead of considering the “common template” for being related, we are instead referred to as “common ancestors” so that the evidence will “conform” to supporting evolution and nothing else. Conformism is not science.
  12. Why another template (RNA, DNA) never evolved? Since the supposed beginning of life abiogenesis (link), RNA and DNA has been a part of all life. If evolution is about evolving into complex and better things, why did not a better template evolve improving on the one we have? We have had the same template for life for millions of years, so why no change?
  13. Where is the dead matter to living matter (abiogenesis) evidence? Since the Stanley Miller experiment (link), there have been a few more trying to go further than the first experiment. There is not one of these experiments that have produced life, not one. Yet they will imply that making only 80% of the amino acids required for life equals life. As if the rest of the amino acids will poof themselves into existence. The other problem with every experiment is that 98% of what was made, along with the amino acids, is toxic to all life… And they also claim lightening made the amino acids. Lightening has around one million volts. The charge heats up hotter than that of the surface of the sun (link). The heat alone would vaporize any amino acids made. One million volts would not make amino acid structures, it would destroy it. Question: Did they use high voltage in their experiments to simulate “real world” conditions? of course not, they knew real lightening would destroy anything created the nano second it was created.
  14. Why all videos on evolution have to be mainly animated, yet evolution is referred to as a true-proven-fact? Is animation now considered evidence or proof for evolution? It would seem so because if you ask an evolutionists for evidence of the process of how something evolved, there is a very good chance they will refer you to one of these videos and try to claim or imply that this proves their claims. I work with flash animation from time to time. I know that if you animate what you cannot observe, your animation has to be totally done off of imagination. So is animation off of imagination proof for evolution? True proven facts do not require as much animation as evolution requires in order to understand it. Neither would it be required to totally animate a movie on it (Ice Age) to help sell the idea to our kids. True proven facts prove themselves on their own merits because the evidence and processes that are observable naturally instead of virtual reality. Example: If you play a shoot em up animated computer game on your PC, are you and the things you shoot real? Because if evolution were real as claimed, there ideas about it would not have to animated in the same fashion as a game.
  15. Darwin’s cousin headed up the eugenics movement, why hide this when teaching Evolution? Francis Galton, Darwin’s half cousin, headed up the Eugenics movement. This movement deemed all mentally ill and disabled Peoples as less than human. To keep them from reproducing, they were sterilized. For medical purposes, human experiments were done and left many scared, and many also died. Less than human means they were considered animals. And killing them this way was considered no worse than killing an animal. The main goal of this movement, which also found a following in the U.S., was to weed out the undesirables so that human perfection through Evolution could be achieved. This is also why Hitler liked this idea and supported the movement. Eugenics was an extension of Hitler’s own extermination of undesirable humans that was part of his hit-list.
Share this page!

 

 

 

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons

... See MoreSee Less

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June. 

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.

Thousands not Billions: How Old is the Earth?

For our friends and supporters near St. Louis, the CUS Society of Creation is hosting its 7th annual conference 14 and 15 June.

http://www.societyofcreation.org/conferences.php

Several CRS members are speaking, and we’d love to have you there.
... See MoreSee Less

This is something you don't see everyday. 2 dolphins and 2 whales playing together. ~ Issac

https://facebook.com/SciencePhileOfficial/videos/…
... See MoreSee Less

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable.

The Living Quarters on the ark are practical but comfortable. ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

i have driven by a cattle farm...i bet that place stunk bad lol

Just remember, this is all artistic license...

Does everyone see the irony in the ark flooding? Wasn’t it suppose to survive the great flood? Do you not know unless you have flood insurance, you are not covered. Flooding is an “act of God”. Ask Louisiana residents how they faired after the flood. How about Puerto Rico? Maybe Missouri or even your neighbor, WV. Did you donate money to help those flood victims? Were the dinosaurs ok???

I'm sorry but I just don't think the ark was that comfortable....In fact I doubt that Noah's home was that comfortable.

They were probably better and more comfortable than my quarters on board the USS Abraham Lincoln! 😂

I doubt it.

It doesn’t seem they would’ve been that comfortable.

View more comments

Video image

May we be as bold as this young lady to speak up at our city council meetings: https://youtu.be/oQ8eob45f1I ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Indeed such a strong faith!

I also would not be here Miriam!

love her.

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments