Question Evolution!

The target audience for this screed is lay people who don't know a hill of beans about science. Most of the questions, and certainly the six questions that Panda answered either present a parody or strawman version of science or present distorted versions of known facts. I find it difficult to believe that nobody at CMI has an inkling about what they are doing.Any person who is fooled to believing that CMI has raised valid issues is being set up for a hammering that might cause him to doubt the entire basis for his belief in God. But I suppose that most YECs are surrounded by people who either cannot or will not expose them to truth.

I understand that you do not accept the theory of evolution or scientific theories of cosmology, and that you believe that creation happened as described in Genesis.But your arguments in this forum consist of nothing more than expressions of personal incredulity and uninformed mockery of science that you quite clearly do not even understand. You are not even trying to make a logical, let alone scientific rebuttal. Are you even trying to be persuasive? And if so, to whom? Buzsaw?It is also pretty clear from the discussion that most posters understand not only the theory of evolution, but also the creation story in Genesis on a level that dwarfs yours. Anyone here could play devil's advocate and do a better job they you are doing. Aren't you even the least bit embarrassed by that state of affairs?At least do the courtesy of pulling up some arguments from AIG or CMI. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No Chuck. I've already described my impression of you in the next to last post I'll ever address to you.

Not so fast. If you look through this thread, you'll note that there is a fairly complete critique of the questions. It is in fact the case that nearly all of the questions themselves have easily exposed flaws.The questions themselves are an attempt to raise issues that scientists should find their ability to answer the question problematic. It is certainly possible to pick a set of questions that if unanswerable, would create significant problems for the theory of evolution. If indeed, CMI had managed to come up with those questions, then those failure to answer the questions should not be simply dismissed as not reflecting poorly on what is claimed to be a theory.I agree that there are going to be some open questions and that scientist should just acknowledged that they cannot answer them. But that approach is not appropriate for every single question CMI might ask.