If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Even More Questions that Evolutionists Cannot Answer

This is a page full of questions about creation and about evolution.

Has life really existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years? Using no emotional arguments or rationalizations, but only actual empirical observation and deductive logic, what proof can you offer for this? When you try to answer, please refrain from just making stuff up! In other words, no lying.

Has life really evolved into its current form by a combination of genetic variation and natural selection? Is there any evidence of this?  Using no emotional arguments or rationalizations, but only actual empirical observation and mathematical logic, what proof can you offer for this?

Is the evidence that has been presented based on confirmation bias on the part of Evolutionists that convinces these scientists that there is no other answer, there can be no other answer other than the standard Evolutionistic answers? If that is not the case, then why are Evolutionist's minds closed to any other answers?

Why are Evolutionist's closed-minded toward any other explanation when their own evidence is lacking and having technical problems?

Why do Dawkin's computer simulation gimmicks fail to inform the viewer that there is a difference between his animations and reality? Why would Dawkin's create a computer simulation that stops making random changes to any characters that have matched his target phrase when nothing in randomness has a target phrase that stops any changes for those characters that are in the right position in the target phrase? What natural mechanism would perform this selective data filtering? Isn't this deception on the part of Dawkins? If Atheists are so right, why do they have to resort to deception?

Why do they answer the question, "Are all mutations harmful," rather than answering the real question, "Why are there no examples of random mutations adding information to the genome?"

"Read John Sanford's book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome and wonder how intelligent people could ever bring themselves to believe that mutations would create progress in fitness, and continue to believe natural selection built all the wonders of life, decades after it was demonstrated by evolution-believing secular population geneticists to be unworkable."(Source: CREV - read more) After actually reading the book, can you possibly still believe in Evolutionism?

When Evolutionists claim that Evolution proves that random mutations add information to the genome, isn't that the same as saying that Evolution proves Evolution?

If Evolutionists are so sure of their stories, why would they resort to straw-man arguments, circular reasoning, and other faulty logic rather than just addressing the issues?

Why can't anyone question the religion of Evolutionism in tax-funded schools?

Why have Evolutionists limited scientific inquiries to only those that confirm Evolutionism?

Why does the Cult of Secularism allow no message to be voiced other than their own? Why do they spend so much capital making sure that theirs is the only voice.

Why are Evolutionists so sure that they are correct in their theory, yet they know that they will have to re-write major parts of that same theory in the future? Why are they so dogmatic?

Is there any possible observation that could falsify Evolutionism?

In the past, Evolutionists have claimed that Evolutionism was falsifiable. Why do Evolutionists ignore all the evidence against Evolutionism?

Why, do Evolutionists only accept one of the many ways that the geologic strata could be interpreted? Why will they only consider the notion that life existed on Earth for thousands of millions of years? Why won't they consider the many other ways of interpreting the same evidence? Is there a religious motivation?

What is the reason that no Naturalist or Atheist has a workable way to explain how the first living cell could have possibly assembled itself from non-living chemicals? Why is there no sensible story that explains how life originated? Why can't the Naturalists and Materialists come up with any workable way by which all the biochemical systems within cells and multi-cellular organisms could have been created? If not by God, how were these designed and created?

Why can't the Evolutionists come up with a reasonable explanation for the blood cells and soft tissue cells found in a dinosaur that they claim is 65 million years old? Why do Evolutionists consider it to be "against science" to consider the possibility of creation when there are so many contradictions (like the blood cells) with the Evolutionistic view... and these contradictions don't exist with the creation view? "The Green River Formation, a sedimentary feature of Wyoming and northern Colorado, is widely recognized for its high quality fossils of fish and other creatures. It has been dated at 40 million years and older. What are the odds, then, of original soft tissue fossils being found encased in its rock? A new study showed that a "fossilized" lizard leg found in the formation is not made up of minerals, but instead still has the original skin and connective tissue." source This is but one of many such finds.

Not only that, but scientists have confirmed that there is DNA in those fossils and that the DNA is not bacterial as the Evolutionists had hoped that it would be. So the conclusions based on actual scientific method indicate that the earth is much younger than most scientists thought it was, that dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and that evolution is impossible (which has already been shown scientifically). That dinosaurs co-existed with humans is confirmed by many historical documents with accounts of dinosaurs (they used to be called dragons)--including the Bible. And there are also the many cave drawings and sculptures of dinosaurs through out the world. It looks like Alley Oop has more scientific accuracy than a lot of the scientific journals on this subject. It's amazing what confirmation bias will do to limit objective observation and conclusions.

Wouldn't you think that, by now, some Evolutionist would have at least dreamed up a story, a tale, a hypothesis, that would show how some evolutionary mechanism could possibly provide the needed increase in genetic instructions? Why do the Evolutionists resort to computer simulations that don't really show a mechanism that could possibly increase the information in cells but, rather, just confuse the issue?

Why is the hoped for fossil evidence lacking? Why doesn't the genetic evidence point clearly to evolution if evolution is indeed such a scientific fact? To say, "Long ago and far away, life began on Earth," is simply story telling, so why would scientists resort to silly story telling? Why would scientists say that creative stories are scientific facts?

Does close study of the structure and organization of living animals and plants clearly indicates their common ancestry and the succession of forms through the fossil record? Does the genetic record contained in every living organism provide powerful evidence for evolution? Why would any scientist come to this conclusion when this conclusion is not the best explanation of the evidence?

If Evolution is a fact, then why is similarity of form more easily explained as evidence for common design by a common designer? Why does the "common-ancestor" explanation have so many problems if it is indeed the correct explanation? For instance, why are there so many wide gaps in the fossil record and in the molecular record? Why, when we consider the possibility of a common, almighty, all wise designer, do all these problems disappear? Wouldn't you think that anyone with an open mind would accept the idea of a common designer over the notion of a common ancestor if they were allowed to view all the evidence? Why are the Atheists, Naturalists, and other Secularist religions so afraid of the facts concerning creation and intelligent design?

Why can't the astronomers find some kind of hypothesis to explain away what is known as the faint young sun paradox? Why does the biblical account and an Earth that is about 6,000 years old present no such paradox?

Is there any truth to the claim that the planets in the Solar System, including Earth, were formed approximately 4560 million years ago? The Nebular Hypothesis says so, but is that speculation valid? Why has every Evolutionist failed to find a way to solve the problems with the Nebular Hypothesis? Were the Earth and the other inner planets formed from fragments that collided and fused together? Why can't the Naturalists even tell a logical tale that would tell us how this could happen even though we know that the fragments would have bounced off each other, rather than clinging together? Why can't the Naturalists explain how Jupiter and Saturn could form without sufficient material for their cores? Even assuming that a miracle happened and Jupiter and Saturn did form by natural processes, then why can't the Materialistic scientists come up with a story about why they have not spiraled in towards the sun as science tells us they would have? Why, with all the millions in tax dollars spent, can't the secularist scientists come up with a single naturalistic explanation of how Uranus and Neptune could have formed? Why can't the scientists find a workable model to explain the retrograde motions of Venus and Uranus? Why do they still use unworkable models such as the collision explanations? Why doesn't the Biblical creation account have these problems? How come the scientists-who have been able to change their story many times-why can't they come up with a workable alibi? Why does the Bible's story-which has not changed and cannot adapt-why does this biblical story fit the facts that are being observed?

After the millions of tax dollars spent, why have the Evolutionists failed to produce any detailed plausible story of evolution? Why are so many parts of their story a mystery when it's only a story and they could make up anything to fit the facts? If they were able to make up a plausible story, would that be evidence for Evolution? If someone made up a plausible story about you even if this plausible story fit the known facts about you, would that plausible story be evidence against you?

• Fifteen Questions for Evolutionists
• Fifteen Questions for Evolutionists: Responses Part 1
• Fifteen Questions for Evolutionists: Responses Part 2
• Fifteen Questions for Evolutionists: Responses Part 3
• Video Responses to Atheists who attempt to answer the Fifteen Questions