Question Evolution!

That was your reply? Where was the moderation for this?You should be suspended.As far as this goes i'll assume you know jack squat about how to refute Pandas simple and clear answers.Chuck77 0Panda 1Embarrassed? Who cares?If you have a problem with Panda's answers, try dealing with them.You championed the thread remember?I am trying to think of a way I could more clearly answer the questions but Panda seems to have covered it.

Hello fellow EVC members,I would like to send an email to CMI on behalf of the members here.I would like to extend an open off for them to come to this site to discuss the claims made in their 15 questions for Evolutionists brochure.The offer to debate is curious as the blog linked does not have a debate section.As this is a debate site, specifically set up for debate and specifically set up to debate this issue, it would seem the obvious choice for a debate concerning this issue.The offer put forward by Jimmy Stephens is - I would like to contact the website as suggested by Jimmy and put forward an offer to support their claims.I will be mentioning the 15 questions and this challenge on other pages as well as youtube channels (eg Potholer54, thunderf00t, AronRa, Jinn & Tonic, The Magic Sandwich show, the Thinking Athiest, The Athiest Experience, maybe even Shockofgod etc etc etc). I would encourage others here to advertise this challenge as much as possible. I will add a message everywhere I find these 15 questions with a link back to EvC.Here is the email that I will be sending. As it is on behalf of members here, I wanted to give it 2 or 3 days before sending in order for members to offer suggestions or complaints.Christian Ministries International,An individual named Jimmy Stephens has posted a message on the evolution/creation debate forum commonly known as EvCforum ( EvC Forum: Home Page ). Jimmy advised that he was part of a grass roots movement titled 'Question Evolution!' and directed us to "15 questions which evolutionists can not adequately answer". It is with great pleasure that I inform you that we can answer these questions.
Jimmy Stephens already has a profile under the name Anel Vadren but feel free to start your own profile. If you are interested in putting your pressing questions to rest, please accept our offer to answer them.I repeat this claim on behalf of interested members of EvC forum
that the 15 questions for evolutionists put forward by Creation Ministries International in their 'Question Evolution!' campaign can be answered.We are prepared to support this claim in open and honest debate on the publically accesible and viewable forum page EvC Forum: Home Page .Are you prepared to have your questions answered?Regards,Interested members of EvC forumThat is the invite I would like to send CMI.If they accept, it will be interesting to see them support their position.Silence will be pretty telling as well.What do you think?

Hey Chuck,You seem very unhappy with Panda's answers but you are not providing any reason why they are not correct.I will expand on one of the answers (even though it does not need it) in the hope that it is more pleasing to you. Pandas answer from Message 8 was - It isn't.This answer is 100% accurate but does not offer much in the way of details. I will expand on the answer.The first most obvious problem to my eyes is the idea that natural selection is taught as evolution. Panda's answer is that 'it isnt' and this is 100% correct.Natural selection -
A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.
(Source : Natural selection - Biology Online Dictionary)Evolution -
(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.(Source: Evolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary)So one reason 'it isnt' is that natural selection is not taught as evolution. Not in any scince clases anyway. It is possible that in some creationist propaganda centers, subjects like natural selection and evolution may be taught in such confusing and misunderstood ways that this mistake may arise. We are doing what we can to fix this, hence my challenge in Message 110.Another reason 'it isnt' is that neither natural selection or evolution make any comment with regards to the origin of life.The link provided (15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com) makes a very serious and obvious mistake by suggesting that evolution (biological evolution) and the General Theory of Evolution as defined by Gerald A. Kerkut are the same thing. They provide links to support their claims, but the links go to articles on their own website. That is pretty poor academicaly speaking, supporting your claims with links to more of your own claims does not take you anywhere. So I had to look elsewhere.Not surprisingly, the General theory of evolution as described in the brochure is found on creationist websites where it is incorrectly used to confuse readers in the same way as CMI is using it. Some creationist websites cant stomach this level of dishonesty and include statements like this - (Source : Theory of evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science)Even the folks over at Answers in Genesis know that the General Theory of Evolution and natuarl selection are different things - (Source : Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )As even creationist sources try to ensure that people do not make this mistake, I am surprised that the mistake is still being made. Are you still making this mistake? Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?So that is the second reason why 'it isnt' is a good answer.The link originally provided for these questions contains this phrase - (Source: 15 questions for evolutionists - creation.com)Seriously Chuck. You have been on this site for a while now. You can't tell me that this sentence does not make you wince. It does not deserve any better an answer than 'is doesn't and it has never claimed to'.My explanation of Panda's answers is by no means the full story. Just a few reasons why his answers are correct.Will you need me to expand on all of the answers or will you be willing to attempt a rebuttal of Panda's answers directly?*Panda, I hope I have not stolen your thunder here but his reply was to my post.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

Hello all,I wanted to make sure that members did not miss this message as it may have been lost amongst a few fast posts -Please check here Message 110 for mny challenge to CMI on all of our behalf.cheers,BT

hey Percy, Nope. The CMI website and the 15 questions use this definition of evolution - (Source:15 questions responses 1 - creation.com)The first question for evolutionists is - How did life originate?This question is based on their belief that the General Theory of Evolution and Biological evolution are the same thing.They believe that if they can discredit the General Theory of Evolution, it disproves biological evolution.The General Theory of evolution and biological evolution are two different animals.

Hey ZD,You are preaching to the choir.My whole point in my original message that Percy was replying to Message 127 was that CMI was using a (deliberately) confusing definition of evolution.I went on pretty much the same journey chasing the definition they used as you did.I dont agree with thier interpretations. My (thus far unanswered) question to Chuck77 - Do you believe that the General Theory of Evolution is the same thing as biological evolution?He seems to be supporting the 15 questions so I wanted to know if he had learnt so little in his time here that he supported the CMI definition.It was a question specifically for Chuck77.

Hey Zen,Your research pretty much demolishes the majority of the questions on that brochure.I wonder if your longer answers are what Chuck77 was looking for?Kudos for going the extra mile!I have a debate with some street preachers this saturday where I will be using your findings.

Hey Larni,Sometimes I would like to but I doubt that would help our position.The funniest thing is that there are two groups that preach in the same part of the mall.One on Friday night, the other on Saturday night.Each of the groups refuses to debate any points brough up by the other because the other group is wrong.They are both fundamentalist christian groups. I noticed that one of the guys I was talking to recently had the same fucking bible as one of the guys the night before.So, same god, same religion, same holy book (same fucking brand even!), yet the botgh thought that the other group are all going to burn in hell.This makes it a bit hard for us because we have to have a different playbook for each group. We have to argue against two individual versions of the truth with one set of facts.I suggested that they both show up on a saturday and work out the truth. I doubt that this will be happening any time soon.

Hey Coyote,I have sent the open challenge letter to CMI advising that we can and will answer the questions.I am awaiting a reply...

Looks like another group has started a campaign.It is called - Question Gravity - 15 Questions for Gravitationists.Here is the brochure - Question Gravity | PDFHere is the vid promoting the campaign - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjiFjIlAk1gThe Question Gravity campaign has as much validity as the Question Evolution Campaign.

Hey Chuck,I provided an answer to question 4 here - Message 127. As outlined in Message 110 I have already contacted CMI with regards to this campaign. I have issued an open offer for them to support their claims in open and honest debate.I have received a reply -

quote:

---

Dear Mr Wain / Dear Ian,

​

Thanks for getting in contact and your offer of providing answers to the questions.

​

Please note what it says on the Question Evolution page:Note to would-be evolution defenders: please read the full brochure and linked articles before attempting to answer the questions, otherwise you will likely be wasting your time boxing at shadows.

​

Also, please look at the answers that have already been put forward (see the 3-part series on responses under Related articles below), or you could be wasting your time duplicating what someone else has done.

​

If your members have something to contribute that has not already been contributed, we would be happy to consider it, but we don’t intend to spend time debating what has already been covered.

​

If something new is contributed to your forum, we would be happy to include it under, or linked from, the Question Evolution page on creation.com, but we don’t have the time for getting involved in the EvCforum, I’m sorry (we are stretched to the limit time-wise). Because of this, we have a policy of a leaving such Internet forums to others.

​

We trust that our supporters will tell us of anything that needs the attention of one of our scientists (although this does not mean we get involved in third party Internet debates by proxy!).

​

I’m sorry for the negative response, but we can only do so much.

​

With kind regards,

​

Don Batten

---

This is pretty much the response I expected if any response was given at all.They are not interested in intellectual honesty or debate. I have read through their responses sections. They do not provide any of the responses or include links to them. Basically, they reword or clump similar responses into catagories (likely to their advantage), then they offer a rebuttal with no avenue to respond. When they have offered their rebuttal, they consider that issue to be closed and covered and they have won the point.You believe that we have not done enough to answer the questions? I was '2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award'. I may as well go for the prize again in 2012. I will start a thread in response to the questions, one at a time and answer them in full. I will do what CMI is not willing to do. I will openly debate the issues in an honest and free forum where I do not have the ability to censor or silence opposition.I invite you to read and comment on my answer to the questions in an open and free manner. This too is a opportunity that CMI is not giving to its opposition.This is how our side play.The new thread will be titled -15 questions for Evolutionists - Question 1 answeredOn another note...One thing I find really ironic with regards to the reply I received from CMI is the author of the email, Don Batton.Here is what Don Batton had to say about Carl Bough and his 'humans lived with dinosaurs' theories -

quote:

---

It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.

​

Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.

​

We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like Carl Baugh, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

---

(Sources :
Carl Baugh - Wikipedia
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html )That is exactly the same thing that we are saying about his claims.From the last paragraph with one small change -We would much rather be spending all our time positively encouraging and equipping rather than countering the well-intentioned but misguided efforts of some like *Don Batton and the people at CMI*, but we cannot stand idly by knowing people are being misled. Truth sets people free, not error!

Hi chuck77,Is being an arrogant prick the only reply you have to my post? My request? If you spent a little bit less time with your head shoved up your arse, you would have noticed that we were invited to contact CMI in order to debate this topic.from Message 101It was not a fucking request of ours, it was EvC politely accepting an offer.Alert the news? CMI is the group who are widely advertising that these questions cannot be answered. They are announcing as loud as they can that they cannot be answered. I, and others here at EvC are advising that we are happy to help them answer the questions. CMI should be interested in what we have to saybecause their claims are making them look ignorant. Are you suggesting that CMI is of the same level as the President of the USA? I have emailed an ignorant bunch of creationists who have made an outlandish claim. They have put forward a claim that they have questions that cannot be nswered. I have put forward my claim that they can and offered a place for them to receive the answers they crave.You seem to be complaining that I am willing to answer the questions and challenge CMI directly. But this does not make sense...remember this - Message 44 where you complained that the answers that Panda had provided were insufficient?Or this - Message 111 where you complained that we could not and would not answer the questions?or this - Message 114 where you accused us of ddging the questions?or this - Message 122 where you complained that we were not providing sufficient evidence?or this - Message 161 where you claimed that we should be able to quickly and easily explain answers for the questions?or this - Message 168 where you again complained that it should be easy to explain all the answers to you?remember all of those complaints you made that the questions were not answered to your liking?And what do you do when someone tells you and CMI that they are willing to answer all of the questions and discuss them in an open forum (an act that CMI is not willing to do)?You complain about that too.You sir, are a douche. I mean that literally. I believe that your sole function should be to wash out dirty vaginas.I will be answering the 15 questions. Feel free to remain as ignorant as you choose to be.

Hey Doc, I am not silly. I am also not naive. I doubted that I would receive any response at all.But I know I have put the offer on the table. I know it. And that is what is important.I wont be like them. I will be open and intellectually honest.And besides, I am going to get that fucking Don Quixote award if its the lat thing I do.

Hello Zen,I like your style.However, my enemies are not imaginary.No imaginary friends, no imaginary enemies.I found this definition of Quixotic and it does seem to apply -Quixotism - is impracticality in pursuit of ideals, especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality. An impulsive person or act might be regarded as quixotic.Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account. It is also related to nave romanticism and to utopianism.I could be called worse than quixotic I suppose.