Interesting Questions

[JM]

From: http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... ists.shtml
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of ual reproduction reproduce?

9. 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 survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. 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 occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) 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?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) 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.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

 

[Novum]

From: http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingt ... ists.shtml

Oh my, Kent Hovind. :D :D :D

This guy is such a raving lunatic, I find it hilarious to read things he writes. But I'll do my best to respond to his questions in order to benefit the forum.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

There was no "space for the universe". The universe is all known space, and as it expanded, all known space expanded as well. There was nothing into which the universe expanded.

This is middle-school stuff. Hovind ought to read a science book.

2. Where did matter come from?

The Big Bang.

This is middle-school stuff. Hovind ought to read a science book.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

Scientists. Scientists observe that bunches of matter attract other bunches of matter. Scientists gave it a name (gravity).

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

I have no idea what this could possibly mean. What does "Dr." Hovind find to be organized about matter? Without more information, this is nonsensical.

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Also nonsensical until he says what he means by "organizing".

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from matter?

This is an entire branch of science; it's called abiogenesis. Hovind needs to read a science book.

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

There was no "learning" involved - it was a property of sinele-celled organisms that they could divide asexually and reproduce. Before single-celled organisms, we have proteins and amino acids that can duplicate. It's not hard to draw the connection, and Hovind again shows ignorance of science.

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

Itself. Thousands of single-celled organisms around today can reproduce both sexually and asexually. I can't believe Hovind is seriously asking this.

9. 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 survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

Why do people want to reproduce? Is Hovind really this stupid? Does he not see the benefit of passing on one's genes? And what does this have to do with evolution?

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Take a piece of paper and tape it to a wall. Throw darts randomly at the wall. Some will hit that paper (we'll call them "good" or "improved" mutations. Beings with those improved mutations are more likely to survive; we'll represent that by doubling the size of our paper on the wall. See where this is going? Hovind clearly doesn't.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Of course it's possible. Is there any evidence for it, though? That's another debate...

12. 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 occurred if evolution were true?

Hovind continues to demonstrate ignorance of evolution. He is assuming that all evolutionary changes are forward-looking, increasingly complex changes. This is simply not the case. We have documented evidence of, and observational data about, evolutionary changes that reduce in less-complex beings.

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) 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?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) 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.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

Frankly, Hovind can go read a *^(*&^ science book and find out himself. These questions

A) are childish,
B) have long since been answered by science, and
C) are publicly and freely available in encyclopedias and science textbooks.

JM, I can't see how Hovind can at all help any argument you wish to advance. The guy is a raving lunatic who clearly has no desire to answer the questions he's asking. How do I know? Because if he had such a desire, he'd have read a book and answered all his own questions by now.

 

[reznwerks]

new

JM you're not new here so how is it you missed the class that explained that not having answers does not default to the existance of a God? Your post consisted primarily of questions waiting for answers. If it had been 1906 instead of 2006 your list would have been far longer.

 

[JM]

I offer this post to make a point, not to defend the questions [I still find interesting], but to show how a silly answer turns a potential discussion into chaos.

Oh my, Kent Hovind.

This guy is such a raving lunatic, I find it hilarious to read things he writes. But I'll do my best to respond to his questions in order to benefit the forum.

Oh my, Novum.

This guy is such a raving pagan, I find it hilarious to read the posts you make. But I'll do my best to respond to your sarcastic quips and inflated ego.

There was no "space for the universe". The universe is all known space, and as it expanded, all known space expanded as well. There was nothing into which the universe expanded.

This is middle-school stuff. Hovind ought to read a science book.

Ever here of String theory? 7 dimensions in addition to the 4 observable dimensions? The space of the universe as we know it was created.

This isn’t middle-school stuff.

The Big Bang.

This is middle-school stuff. Hovind ought to read a science book.

Giving the answer, “the Big Bang†doesn’t state how matter was created. This, once again, isn’t middle-school “stuff.†Novum ought to read a science book.

Scientists. Scientists observe that bunches of matter attract other bunches of matter. Scientists gave it a name (gravity).

Is this a joke? You believe the law of gravity came into being by observation and giving it a name?

I have no idea what this could possibly mean. What does "Dr." Hovind find to be organized about matter? Without more information, this is nonsensical.

Understandably so far. Where did you get your Ph. D.? “Dr.†Novum doing his best to belittle the questions so he won’t have to face them.

Also nonsensical until he says what he means by "organizing".

You have to start feeling ridiculous by now.

This is an entire branch of science; it's called abiogenesis. Hovind needs to read a science book.

Abiogenesis answers a few of the questions, but not the “why.†Silly rabbit. Instead of the “science book†maybe you should finish reading the questions…lol

There was no "learning" involved - it was a property of sinele-celled organisms that they could divide asexually and reproduce. Before single-celled organisms, we have proteins and amino acids that can duplicate. It's not hard to draw the connection, and Hovind again shows ignorance of science.

Maybe you should get back to the science book you keep talking about, look up macro and miro evolution, then get back to us. May I suggest a title? The Selfish Gene.

Itself. Thousands of single-celled organisms around today can reproduce both sexually and asexually. I can't believe Hovind is seriously asking this.

Ahhhhh, you don’t understand the question. Ok.

Why do people want to reproduce? Is Hovind really this stupid? Does he not see the benefit of passing on one's genes? And what does this have to do with evolution?

People reproduce for many reasons, love and accedental are two reasons. Are you suggesting these two reasons are found among single celled organisms and animals? Lol

Take a piece of paper and tape it to a wall. Throw darts randomly at the wall. Some will hit that paper (we'll call them "good" or "improved" mutations. Beings with those improved mutations are more likely to survive; we'll represent that by doubling the size of our paper on the wall. See where this is going? Hovind clearly doesn't.

It’s more like a bomb that goes off in a car factory. Slowly, over millions of years, the pieces somehow become minivans! Or taking a box of popsickle sticks, tossing them onto the floor and over time it creates a replica of an Indian Village! [I sure could’ve used this one in grade 4 when I was supposed to build a replica of an Indian Village.]

Of course it's possible. Is there any evidence for it, though? That's another debate...

Yes, it is possible.

Hovind continues to demonstrate ignorance of evolution. He is assuming that all evolutionary changes are forward-looking, increasingly complex changes. This is simply not the case. We have documented evidence of, and observational data about, evolutionary changes that reduce in less-complex beings.

Suggested Reading [once again]: The Selfish Gene.

Frankly, Hovind can go read a *^(*&^ science book and find out himself. These questions

A) are childish,
B) have long since been answered by science, and
C) are publicly and freely available in encyclopedias and science textbooks.

Frankly, I hope Nov gets the point about off the cuff responses to questions I really thought were interesting. These responses are

A)childish,
B) have been answered in theory and not observable, empirical, measurable evidence
C) are publicly assumed but remain unproven

JM, I can't see how Hovind can at all help any argument you wish to advance. The guy is a raving lunatic who clearly has no desire to answer the questions he's asking. How do I know? Because if he had such a desire, he'd have read a book and answered all his own questions by now.

Nov, I can’t see how you viewed these questions as “argument†that I was advancing. This is assumed on you part. The answers you gave are not answers, and when you re-read them, you’ll agree they don’t really meet your previous standard.

So, now we know why some mammals eat their children...

It's these types of posts that make me take breaks from this forum, see ya in a week or so...

jm

 

[Novum]

Oh my, Novum.

This guy is such a raving pagan, I find it hilarious to read the posts you make. But I'll do my best to respond to your sarcastic quips and inflated ego.

I love it. JM, you're my favorite forum member.

Ever here of String theory? 7 dimensions in addition to the 4 observable dimensions? The space of the universe as we know it was created.

String theory makes no claim about how the universe came about, "created" or not. I think you're confusing it with something else.

Giving the answer, “the Big Bang†doesn’t state how matter was created.

No, the Big Bang does not state how matter was created. However, I don't think you read Hovind's question. He asked where matter came from; the Big Bang is indeed the source of all matter that exists today. Perhaps Hovind meant to ask how the Big Bang was formed?

Is this a joke? You believe the law of gravity came into being by observation and giving it a name?

1000 years ago, there was no Law of Gravity; there wasn't much science either. Scientists since then have observed a phenomenon in which matter attracts other matter; this phenomenon has been termed "gravity".

It seems like you misunderstood Hovind's question. Perhaps you - or he - meant to ask why matter attracts matter?

Understandably so far. Where did you get your Ph. D.? “Dr.†Novum doing his best to belittle the questions so he won’t have to face them.

Hovind's question makes no sense to me. Perhaps, JM, you could explain it for this forum: what does Hovind mean by "organized matter"? I eagerly await your response.

Abiogenesis answers a few of the questions, but not the “why.†Silly rabbit. Instead of the “science book†maybe you should finish reading the questions…lol

Hovind's question - and your response - makes the enormous assumption that there even is a "why" in the first place. Please provide evidence for this claim before you make yourself look worse.

Maybe you should get back to the science book you keep talking about, look up macro and miro evolution, then get back to us.

I have no idea why you think my response was incorrect. I'm not sure that you do either.

Ahhhhh, you don’t understand the question. Ok.

You appear to be denying that certain organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually. You are quite simply wrong, JM.

People reproduce for many reasons, love and accedental are two reasons. Are you suggesting these two reasons are found among single celled organisms and animals? Lol

Lol the day away, JM. 14-year-old internet speak suits you well.

As for this question, we're not talking about people. "Love" does not exist in single-celled organisms, though "accidental" sounds more like it.

It’s more like a bomb that goes off in a car factory. Slowly, over millions of years, the pieces somehow become minivans!

Incorrect, false analogy. I'll fix it for you:

"It's more like a bomb that goes off in a car factory. Yet each time the bomb fails to produce a minivan, there is an increase in the likelihood that, next time, it will. Slowly, over millions of years, the pieces become minivans - just as we'd expect!"

Or taking a box of popsickle sticks, tossing them onto the floor and over time it creates a replica of an Indian Village! [I sure could’ve used this one in grade 4 when I was supposed to build a replica of an Indian Village.

Incorrect, false analogy. See above.

Nov, I can’t see how you viewed these questions as “argument†that I was advancing. This is assumed on you part.

You have a long, distinguished history of copying and pasting text from external sites in an effort to have others make your point for you. Are you stating that you do not agree with Hovind? If so, why did you write this post in defense of him?

It's these types of posts that make me take breaks from this forum, see ya in a week or so...

In your spare time, you would do well to heed your own advice and read a science book yourself.

 

[Drew]

On the question of "where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?":

Novum, I think the intent of this question was to ask why the universe exhibits lawful behaviour at all, not who were the intelligent agents that recognized this and codified that behaviour into laws.

I take the position that the existence of a lawfully ordered universe is indeed a deep and profound mystery that has baffled minds greater than ours for centuries if not millenia. Is lawfulness a kind of logical necessity - the idea that a universe simply cannot exist without regular patterns. Are there multiple universes? If so, are they all lawful? If a universe is not ordered by regularities, can intelligent life evolve in that universe to ponder this very question?

I think this question leads to impossible mystery. If one posits that God created the laws, the issue of the "reason" for the existence of a God with His specific properties pops up as essentially the same mystery.

I suspect that this question will never be answered in a manner that does not involve almost total speculation.

 

[ArtGuy]

A couple points:

First, why isn't this in the Science sub-forum?

Second, string theory posits either 10 or 26 dimensions, not 7. It also has nothing to do with creating space, and isn't even in very good standing. The conventional wisdom is fast turning against string theory as a viable theory. It's not received its death knell yet, but it's on the ropes.

Third, empty space isn't empty. It's constantly boiling with the creation of virtual particle pairs. In laymen's terms, this means that a photon and anti-photon will suddenly appear in empty space, then quickly run into each other and annihiliate. It happens fast enough that, in essence, the universe "doesn't notice", and so conservation of energy is no violated. It's been posited that the birth of the universe could've been the result of a similar phenomenon on a much larger scale - the empty void burped, and here we are. Speaking as a Christian, this could be the mechanism by which God created the universe. "And on the first day, God said, 'Let there be a local disturbance in spacetime, and let it Bang that is Big be the result.' And there was, and it was good. The first 8.7 billion years." :-D

Fourth, I apparently fail to grasp the concept of "a couple".

 

[mutzrein]

Yeah I agree, this is not Apologetics and Theology. I don't wade through the science stuff to find the threads I want so why is this here Mods?