SodaHead - BillHill "In God We Trust"'s Questions

Could this tiny wonder really evolved from other Beetles BOMBARDIER BEETLE

2009-03-07T06:01:36Z

Could this tiny wonder really evolved from other Beetles BOMBARDIER BEETLE

1 answers, 0 raves

The tiny bombardier beetle could not possibly have evolved. His defence mechanism is amazingly complicated, and could only have been created with all the parts working together perfectly. From twin ‘exhaust tubes’ at his tail, this beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases with a loud pop. How can this be? German chemist Dr Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which would usually form a dirty ugly mixture. The well-designed beetle uses a special ‘inhibitor’ chemical to keep the mixture from reacting. How then can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed? Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle, of course! Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded! http://www.answersingenesis.org

NO WAY THAT LITTLE BUGGER WAS DESIGNED	100% (1 answers)
YES, HE JUST WAITED LONG ENOUGH AND EVERYTHING FELL INTO PLACE	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
All of the above	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	0% (0 answers)

Is this another reason to believe that man did not evolve from the animal kingdom? LANGUAGE and SPEECH

2009-03-07T05:46:03Z

Is this another reason to believe that man did not evolve from the animal kingdom? LANGUAGE and SPEECH

8 answers, -1 raves

Could language have come directly out of some prehuman trait? No. Does it resemble forms of animal communication? No. . . . no ape, despite intensive training, has yet acquired even the rudiments of syntax, and many language acquisitionists insist that syntax is there even at infants' one-word stage. Not only is there no animal that is capable of achieving anything like human speech, but also there is, at the other end of the scale, no human tribe that does not have a true language.

No We are monkeys with vocal chords for speech	25% (2 answers)
Yes This is definitely another good reason to denounce my membership in the animal kingdom	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	13% (1 answers)
All of the above	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	63% (5 answers)

Are these nine good reasons why evolution (all species evolving from one species) cannot be true? Information credit goes to: http://us1.harunyahya.com/

2009-03-04T16:50:10Z

Are these nine good reasons why evolution (all species evolving from one species) cannot be true? Information credit goes to: http://us1.harunyahya.com/

3 answers, 0 raves

Life cannot emerge by chance... The odds that an average protein molecule forms by chance have been calculated as “1 in 10950, a figure that far exceeds human imagination. In mathematical terms, this figure represents a probability of “zero.” There is not a single intermediate fossil… Although some 100 million fossils belonging to 250,000 separate species have to date been unearthed, not one supports Darwinism. “Living fossils” are a response to evolutionary myths... “living fossils” are the fossils that despite being hundreds of millions of years old, they are identical to specimens living today. The unimaginable information in DNA… It is an absolute fact that DNA cannot form by chance. Organs with irreducible complexity... For example, eyes and wings possess irreducible complexity. It is impossible for the structures such as the tear gland, retina and iris, that together comprise the eye, to come into being individually in stages. All the variety of life on Earth appeared suddenly 530 million years ago... Nearly all the phyla (Mollusca, Chordata and similar categories) emerged in the Cambrian Period, 530 million years ago. Only one or two phyla existed in the Pre-Cambrian. For example, there is no difference between the eye of the trilobite, a life form that emerged in the Cambrian, and the eyes of present-day life forms. Reptiles are not the ancestors of birds... Evolutionists are no longer able to point to Archaeopteryx as an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. Investigations of fossils have shown that the creature is not a transitional form, but rather an extinct species of bird with slightly different characteristics to those of present-day birds. Fish did not move onto the land... Evolutionists once used to point to the coelacanth as evidence for the myth of a transition from water to dry land. It was thought that the coelacanth was an intermediate life form between fish and amphibians. However, a “living” coelacanth was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938. Mutations cannot form new species... Mutations are breakages and dislocations, caused by radiation or chemical effects, in the DNA molecule located in the nucleus of the living cell and that carries genetic information. DNA has a highly complex structure. For that reason, any random change arising in this molecule can only damage it. Mutations usually lead to irreparable damage, deformity and even death. People subjected to the tragedies of Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl are living indications of this. The claim that mutations are an evolutionary mechanism is proof of the dilemma facing the theory of evolution.

Absolutely NOT true....overwhelming evidence	33% (1 answers)
No, evolution is true, we just need more time to find those darn "transitional fossils"	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	67% (2 answers)

Could life have begun without some sort of information to guide it's course?

2009-03-03T20:30:21Z

Could life have begun without some sort of information to guide it's course?

5 answers, 0 raves

The retired Dr Werner Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be: A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title. One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature. Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed. Professor Gitt’s Universal Laws for Information It is impossible to set up, store, or transmit information without using a code. It is impossible to have a code apart from a free and deliberate convention. It is impossible to have information without a sender. It is impossible that information can exist without having had a mental source. It is impossible for information to exist without having been established voluntarily by a free will. It is impossible for information to exist without all five hierarchical levels: statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics [the purpose for which the information is intended, from the Greek apobeinon = result, success, conclusion[73]]. It is impossible that information can originate in statistical processes. Give me your input. What do you think?

Didn't need Information Nature just used Random Selection	0% (0 answers)
Information is essential for any type of creation from automobiles to universes	80% (4 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	20% (1 answers)

Mendel's Accountant. Is it a fair mathematical program to prove that evolution "single cell to man" is not possible?

2009-02-08T23:35:33Z

Mendel's Accountant. Is it a fair mathematical program to prove that evolution "single cell to man" is not possible?

3 answers, 0 raves

Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent "fatal flaws" that are well known to population geneticists, but that have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades--based upon logic and mathematical formulations. Using Mendel's Accountant the findings show: "All our findings using numerical simulation strongly support previous theoretical and mathematical analyses [Muller, 1950], [Kondrashov, 1995], [Muller, 1964], [Loewe, 2006], which have consistently suggested fundamental and irreconcilable problems with neo-Darwinian theory. All of these previous analyses, when taken at face value, clearly show that neo-Darwinian theory should not work. Numerical simulation now independently and conclusively affirms this. Honest numerical simulation represents the most objective means I can conceive of, for testing neo-Darwinian theory. The results of such analyses are so consistent and so compelling, that I can not imagine a more rigorous falsification of the standing paradigm. Even if we grossly distort the input data by many orders of magnitude, trying to favor the paradigm, we still consistently see degeneration. These findings should be sufficient to discredit the paradigm to the satisfaction of any reasonable and open-minded person. In this light, new models are clearly needed to explain the origin and preservation of life forms." Quote by: John C. Sanford, Courtesy Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University

Yes It's simulation far exceeds anything else out there	0% (0 answers)
NO NO a thousand times NO, we came from fish.	0% (0 answers)
Undecided	33% (1 answers)
None of the above	67% (2 answers)

Once you read what scientists have to ASSUME to radiocarbon date objects will you still believe the earth is billions of years old?

2009-02-06T19:55:56Z

Once you read what scientists have to ASSUME to radiocarbon date objects will you still believe the earth is billions of years old?

6 answers, 0 raves

1. First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. 2. The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. 3 Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. 4. It is also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – an assumption that they had reached a balance. 5. It is also assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. 6. Lastly, it has to be assummed that the parent was never a victim of contamination of any kind. If you were to have 6 assumptions in any mathematical equation your answer has no chance of being correct, that is, ASSUMING you are actually looking for the correct answer.

NO WAY You can't assume your way to the truth	17% (1 answers)
YES Let the scientist do the best they can with what they have.	17% (1 answers)
Undecided	17% (1 answers)
None of the above	50% (3 answers)

Could life on Earth have happened by chance?

2009-01-30T22:08:07Z

Could life on Earth have happened by chance?

13 answers, +2 raves

Richard Dawkins Is Wising Up! University of Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, who is known to be Darwin’s Rottweiler, has long been striving to sustain a theory which is exposed to a universal destruction and is finally wising up! In all his recent articles, conversations and interviews, Dawkins has begun to voice a single truth: that life on Earth cannot have formed by chance!

Sure, Why Not?	46% (6 answers)
No WAY	31% (4 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	23% (3 answers)

Wasn't it great to see the God of all creation so well represented during the Obama Inauguration?

2009-01-20T18:22:22Z

Wasn't it great to see the God of all creation so well represented during the Obama Inauguration?

32 answers, +8 raves

Although I didn't vote for President Obama, he is my president now and I pray for his and his familys safety and wisdom for the hugh task at hand. I was thrilled to see our Creator so well represented in this country that has been labeled "no longer a Christian Nation". What do you think??

Yes WE ARE A CHRISTIAN NATION	47% (15 answers)
NO They just did it for show.	19% (6 answers)
Undecided	16% (5 answers)
None of the above	19% (6 answers)

Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar has just offered ten trillion lira - a mouth-watering $7.5 trillion - to "anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution". WILL ANYONE COME FORWARD WITH THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE?

2009-01-13T18:10:26Z

Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar has just offered ten trillion lira - a mouth-watering $7.5 trillion - to "anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution". WILL ANYONE COME FORWARD WITH THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE?

3 answers, +1 raves

Evolutionists have stuck to their guns regarding evolution starting from a single cell (by chance), then before that one died due to a way to sustain itself, millions more joined that one and formed the first life (by chance). From that first blob of life we are end result after billions of years of evolution. Although there are major problems along the line of this great tale, it is still the only thing taught in schools. If evolution was as they say then there should be a hugh abundance of intermediate - transitional fossils to prove it. NONE NADA ZILCH,

YES They are there, just not found yet.	33% (1 answers)
NO They aren't there and never have been.	67% (2 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	0% (0 answers)

Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to "Mention" in Science Classes. What's going on here?

2008-12-18T20:52:47Z

Prominent Atheist Professor of Law and Philosophy Thomas Nagel Calls Intelligent Design Scientific and Constitutional to "Mention" in Science Classes. What's going on here?

10 answers, +3 raves

Prof. Thomas Nagel, a self-declared atheist who earned his PhD. in philosophy at Harvard 45 years ago, who has been a professor at U.C. Berkeley, Princeton, and the last 28 years at New York University, and who has published ten books and more than 60 articles, has published an important essay, "Public Education and Intelligent Design," in the Wiley InterScience Journal Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 36, issue 2, on-line at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118493933/home

Finally seeing the evidence	50% (5 answers)
It must be a mistake Atheists can't believe in ID	10% (1 answers)
Undecided	0% (0 answers)
All of the above	0% (0 answers)
None of the above	40% (4 answers)