I did say I would answer these questions only after Paul stuck to the subject and supported his claims. Although that has yet to happen (and I don't expect it will) it appears there are some that may actually see these as good questions, so I will answer them anyways.
First of all, these are so sporadic, incomplete and off the wall that I really think it was just an attempt to avoid back up a statement. A method known as shot-gunning, where a large amount of often unrelated questions are asked, and if they can't be answered it is considered a victory. The asker does very little work and tries to force the other person to spend a lot of time. It's not uncommon for people to try and dodge things. Empty claims are all too often made on this board. Second, I don't really think Paul wanted an answer or cares about an answer, but here they are anyway. Third, most of these questions are very outdated and answers can be found in the C&E archive thread or on the internet.
1) Where is the evolutionary evidence for the cosmic egg,
Evolution is biology, not cosmology, it has about as much evidence for the cosmic egg as relativity has for the reason why people get sick.
But, to give an answer, the first moments of the big bang is a large unknown. The cosmic egg idea appears to have been dropped for more reason ideas but so far we don't know.
2) the evidence of transitional fossils between each type of organism,
Here we get into a word game, whether intentional or not. "Type" needs to be defined before any meaningful answer can be given. Without a definition, any answer given could just be dismissed as not being a transitional between "types."
There are plenty of transitional fossils, one of my favorite is the whale transitional where it shows the early whale going from land to sea.
3) the proof of the constancy of light speed.
Special relativity has been tested many times and shown to work, it is based on c being a constant. Observations of c show it to be constant. c doesn't exist in a vacuum (well yes it does, but...) other effects rely on c. If c were different in the past we could observe the effects. For example, the famous E=mc^2 relies on the constant c. If c were increased E would increase as well, and it would mean that nuclear reactions would produce a larger amount of energy.
4) Why would a flagellum develop in bacteria, and what use was it to the bacteria while it was evolving?
A flagellum can help bacteria move around.
How it was of use to bacteria when it was evolving can be found here,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
One example is that in bacteria a non swimming appendage is still useful to help it remain suspended in water or to increase the possibility it will bump into something to eat.
5) Why not answer Darwins fear that the eye would disprove his whole theory with some evidence?
Darwin had no such fear unless you take him out of context.
6) Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Here we have another word game. Without a solid definition of "information" any answer can be waved away as not being able to create, "Information."
To answer the question. Evolution.
7) What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
This seems like a question about abiogenesis, which is not part of evolution.
It's also a whole new topic, but the short answer is that chemistry can form precursors to RNA which can form RNA and then DNA.
8) What about the 4,000 books worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
What about them? What is the point of this question? Throw out big numbers and hope it amazes people into believing creationism?
They were created by evolution.
9) If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesnt the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
Ha. If astronomers received an intelligent signal they would conclude it was intelligent? Wow, no kidding. I bet if I gave you a blue ball you would conclude it was blue.
I assume the question should be, if astronomers received an unknown signal from space how would they conclude it was intelligent? SETI doesn't search for intelligent patterns in radio signals but for certain radio bands that don't occur naturally, and even then it isn't solid evidence it was created by an intelligent source.
Complexity doesn't imply design especially when there is a natural explanation.
10) Then which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
DNA could have evolved from RNA.
11) If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?
Why not?
This question isn't even correct. The full original question asks if the big bang started everything spinning (it didn't) then how come planets spin backwards.
Collisions when they were forming could have caused them to spin a different directly. Gravitational forces could cause smaller objects to spin in a different direction. Nothing says all planets must spin the same way.
12) Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got thereany hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
And this has what to do with evolution?
This is still hotly debated in science. The current theory is that the moon formed from impact debris. Of course, a lack of explanation for the moon doesn't mean it was magically popped into existance.
13) Why arent students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moons origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?
They aren't. Prove it.
Students aren't taught the reasons for rejecting "evolutionary theories" for the moons origin because there are none, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the moon.
14) How could stars evolve?
Again, another question that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Stars could form by matter (mostly hydrogen) clumping together. As it clumps together it's gravity increases and it pulls in more matter and eventually all the matter crushes together to create a fusion reaction that lights the star.
15) Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?
Haha, what a loaded question. I remember back in 4th grade when kids would go around asking, "Do your parents know you are gay?" are we back in 4th grade?
There are no unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used to show the earth is billions of years old at least once you actually understand the evidence.
Now a question to you,
Are you aware that plagiarism is wrong and against forum rules (even if the page says you are allowed to use the content freely, not citing it is still plagiarism.)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
conclusion
I doubt many will read this and even fewer that really need too. This was mainly posted as Duordi asked for me to answer the questions and there is hope he might learn from it.
It has become my experience that creationist don't bother to read most of the posts here and will bring up the same arguments over and over again no matter how many times they have been shot down.
First of all, these are so sporadic, incomplete and off the wall that I really think it was just an attempt to avoid back up a statement. A method known as shot-gunning, where a large amount of often unrelated questions are asked, and if they can't be answered it is considered a victory. The asker does very little work and tries to force the other person to spend a lot of time. It's not uncommon for people to try and dodge things. Empty claims are all too often made on this board. Second, I don't really think Paul wanted an answer or cares about an answer, but here they are anyway. Third, most of these questions are very outdated and answers can be found in the C&E archive thread or on the internet.
1) Where is the evolutionary evidence for the cosmic egg,
Evolution is biology, not cosmology, it has about as much evidence for the cosmic egg as relativity has for the reason why people get sick.
But, to give an answer, the first moments of the big bang is a large unknown. The cosmic egg idea appears to have been dropped for more reason ideas but so far we don't know.
2) the evidence of transitional fossils between each type of organism,
Here we get into a word game, whether intentional or not. "Type" needs to be defined before any meaningful answer can be given. Without a definition, any answer given could just be dismissed as not being a transitional between "types."
There are plenty of transitional fossils, one of my favorite is the whale transitional where it shows the early whale going from land to sea.
3) the proof of the constancy of light speed.
Special relativity has been tested many times and shown to work, it is based on c being a constant. Observations of c show it to be constant. c doesn't exist in a vacuum (well yes it does, but...) other effects rely on c. If c were different in the past we could observe the effects. For example, the famous E=mc^2 relies on the constant c. If c were increased E would increase as well, and it would mean that nuclear reactions would produce a larger amount of energy.
4) Why would a flagellum develop in bacteria, and what use was it to the bacteria while it was evolving?
A flagellum can help bacteria move around.
How it was of use to bacteria when it was evolving can be found here,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html
and here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
One example is that in bacteria a non swimming appendage is still useful to help it remain suspended in water or to increase the possibility it will bump into something to eat.
5) Why not answer Darwins fear that the eye would disprove his whole theory with some evidence?
Darwin had no such fear unless you take him out of context.
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
Darwin continues with three more pages describing a sequence of plausible intermediate stages between eyelessness and human eyes, giving examples from existing organisms to show that the intermediates are viable."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html
6) Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information.
Here we have another word game. Without a solid definition of "information" any answer can be waved away as not being able to create, "Information."
To answer the question. Evolution.
7) What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself?
This seems like a question about abiogenesis, which is not part of evolution.
It's also a whole new topic, but the short answer is that chemistry can form precursors to RNA which can form RNA and then DNA.
8) What about the 4,000 books worth of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells?
What about them? What is the point of this question? Throw out big numbers and hope it amazes people into believing creationism?
They were created by evolution.
9) If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesnt the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?
Ha. If astronomers received an intelligent signal they would conclude it was intelligent? Wow, no kidding. I bet if I gave you a blue ball you would conclude it was blue.
I assume the question should be, if astronomers received an unknown signal from space how would they conclude it was intelligent? SETI doesn't search for intelligent patterns in radio signals but for certain radio bands that don't occur naturally, and even then it isn't solid evidence it was created by an intelligent source.
Complexity doesn't imply design especially when there is a natural explanation.
10) Then which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?
DNA could have evolved from RNA.
11) If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?
Why not?
This question isn't even correct. The full original question asks if the big bang started everything spinning (it didn't) then how come planets spin backwards.
Collisions when they were forming could have caused them to spin a different directly. Gravitational forces could cause smaller objects to spin in a different direction. Nothing says all planets must spin the same way.
12) Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got thereany hypothesis that is consistent with all the data?
And this has what to do with evolution?
This is still hotly debated in science. The current theory is that the moon formed from impact debris. Of course, a lack of explanation for the moon doesn't mean it was magically popped into existance.
13) Why arent students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moons origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?
They aren't. Prove it.
Students aren't taught the reasons for rejecting "evolutionary theories" for the moons origin because there are none, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the moon.
14) How could stars evolve?
Again, another question that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Stars could form by matter (mostly hydrogen) clumping together. As it clumps together it's gravity increases and it pulls in more matter and eventually all the matter crushes together to create a fusion reaction that lights the star.
15) Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?
Haha, what a loaded question. I remember back in 4th grade when kids would go around asking, "Do your parents know you are gay?" are we back in 4th grade?
There are no unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used to show the earth is billions of years old at least once you actually understand the evidence.
Now a question to you,
Are you aware that plagiarism is wrong and against forum rules (even if the page says you are allowed to use the content freely, not citing it is still plagiarism.)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/
conclusion
I doubt many will read this and even fewer that really need too. This was mainly posted as Duordi asked for me to answer the questions and there is hope he might learn from it.
It has become my experience that creationist don't bother to read most of the posts here and will bring up the same arguments over and over again no matter how many times they have been shot down.
