Some basic questions. I got some more coming. Happy Mothers Day!
1. The amazing complexity of the simplest building blocks of life, and how it could have evolved
from non-living material. A quote from Henry M. Morris, "The relationship between DNA and protien
required for life is one that no chemist would ever suspect. It's using a series of bases (actually
taken three at a time) to line up a series of R groups...R stands for radical...An R group can be an
acid, it can be a base, it can be a single hydrogen atom, a short chain, a long chain, a single ring,
a double ring, fat or water soluble. The point is this: there is no inherent chemical tendency for a series
of bases to line up in the orderly way required for life. The base R group has to be imposed
on matter, it has no basis within matter." True life can not arise from non living material.
2. The fossil record. Once was supposedly the best evidence for evolution, many evolutionist
are now throwing it out. There are no intermediate forms between animals, which should be abundant
if evolution were true. All supposed transitional fossils has been disproven. Darwin himself said, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numcers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and all extinct species must have been
inconceivably great!" And there are
many anomalies in the fossils too. True human bones found in the same strata as their "ancestors",
modern birds found next to the Archaeopteryx, and others.
3. The second law of thermodynamics, which states that all systems go downhill, into disorder.
This is taken from : http://www.icr.org/newsletters/impact/impactjan01.html
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
"Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent."
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
4. Evolution is not occuring now. We don't see any transitional forms now. And why are there
not any transitional fossils? If a fox evolved into a horse, where are the fossils inbetween?
Some evidence for horse evolution still used today shows skeletons of different horses evolving
into the modern horse. But these skeletons have a different number of ribs, some have 15, then
19, but then it drops to 18. That is just illogical.
5. "Living Links" Before 1930, the Coelacanth was an extinct "link" between fish and amphibian.
They dated the Coelacanth to have lived 70 million years ago. The Coelacanth was used as an index
fossil to date other fossils found in the same strata. But to there suprise, in the 1930's,
someone caught a living coelacanth off the coast of Madagascar! How do they know if the coelacancth
fossil they found was not 6,000 years old, and subsequently, dated other fossils incorectly.