I suggest the following answer:
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
Where did God come from? At least we know the universe exists.
2. Where did matter come from?
Where did God come from? At least we know that mass exists.
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Where did God come from? At least we know that the laws of the universe exist.
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
It is not perfectly organized. Most of the universe is chaotic.
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When you light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, it "organizes" itself into ordered groups of H2O. This is caused by the nature of matter, not by some kind of magical "energy" input.
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
We don't know precisely when, but at some point the planet was covered with mindless nonsentient life; a state which persisted for billions of years. This is clearly shown in the fossil record. The only theory which can explain this using observable phenomena is chemical abiogenesis, which posits a primitive RNA-like self-replicating molecule.
The alternative, of course, is to buy into Dr. Dino's theory that something called "God" did it. Naturally, he cannot explain how
God did it, and God himself is inscrutable, so his theory is really a long-winded way of saying "I don't know either".
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
Rhetorical repetition of the previous question. Since the first "living organism" would have been a mere molecule that tends to produce certain reactions through catalysis, no "learning" was required.
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ask the nearest plant. Half of the world's plants can reproduce asexually or sexually. They demonstrate the "missing link" for the evolution of sexual reproduction.
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
The drive to reproduce is an obvious evolutionary trait, since evolutionary success is defined by propagation over multiple generations. In short, given two species, one of which has a drive to reproduce and the other does not, the one with a drive to reproduce will not go extinct. This is painfully obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
"False analogy" fallacy. Recombining English letters can
produce new English words, which is all we're interested in. Since every single life form on Earth shares the same base nucleotide pairs, there was never a need to produce "words" in a different "language". In fact, our shared biochemical heritage is one of the proofs of common ancestry.
BTW, bacterial mutations demonstrate clearly that this question is nonsense, since what he describes as impossible is actually quite commonplace. And in fact, we are all
slightly mutated relative to one another, which is why all humans are not identical. Do not confuse real biological mutation with the kind of mutation you see in "The X-Men". It does not produce freaks or magic powers; a good example of a mutation is Shaquille O'Neal.
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Sure. However, the logical principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor, demands that you actually provide evidence of this Creator's existence and a testable definition before it can be considered a viable theory to compete with common ancestry. Got one handy?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
This isn't difficult; one of the things which can happen in reproduction is something called gene duplication, where a gene is doubled. This gene can then be modified, thus adding new "information".
13. When, where, why, and how did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Why do we have to know exactly where and when this happened in order to know that it was possible?
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
See above. BTW, go look at a lungfish sometime. It's pretty obvious how it happened.
* Amphibians change to reptiles?
See above. BTW, a lot of amphibians are
reptiles. No "change" was requird. Perhaps you should try opening a zoology book sometime.
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Actually, some of the ancient dinosaurs were virtually birds already, specifically the flying varieties (you did
know there were flying varieties of dinosaur, right?
How did the intermediate forms live?
Lungfish, for example, live quite well even today. What does Dr. Dino think an "intermediate form" looks like? Does he realize that an "intermediate" form is not some kind of freakish life form but rather, any life form whose evolutionary path is not a dead-end? Does he realize that we
could be an intermediate form? Do you?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
He obviously subscribes to the "lazy attack" method of argument against evolution theory, where he just challenges you to know everything about every species of he declares victory by default. As I said earlier, this is yet another example of his use of the "appeal to ignorance" fallacy. Can he show that the predictions of evolution theory are inconsistent with the fossil records of these creatures? Can you? Why does he feel that whales and dolphins could not
have evolved, and how does he explain vestigial features in both of them, such as the fact that the dolphin contains a complete skeleton of a hand inside its flippers? Why does he feel that items such as eyes and epidermal features could not have evolved, even though more primitive versions of all are found in various animals even today?
15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?
* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it?
Honestly, this "explain everything in the universe or I win" debate technique is not only tiresome, but highly fallacious. Can you show why any of this is not
possible under the laws of nature, hence requiring divine intervention?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
Show how they defy an evolutionary explanation.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
What does he mean by mimicry? If he's talking about something like the chameleon, there is a "survival of the fittest" explanation which is so obvious that you'd have to be either blind or stupid not to get it.
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Why does he think that Man had to evolve feelings? Does it occur to him that all animals have emotions, not just us? Has he ever owned a pet? And why is the usefulness of emotion not obvious to him? Love and lust are necessary for procreation. Desire for food, territory, etc. are necessary for survival. Fear is necesssary for survival.
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
Obviously, since electromagnetic energy can catalyze certain chemical reactions, early organisms would thrive if they employed those reactions.
20. *How did thought evolve?
Since there is a continuous spectrum of organisms between unthinking bacteria and thinking humans even today, it's pretty obvious that there is no magical point at which you can declare that "thought" suddenly begins in life.
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
Is he seriously arguing that there is no evolutionary imperative for flowering plants, even though it may be part of their reproductive mechanism?
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
The fact that there is not perfect consensus among scientists is proof of their rationality, not their dogmatism. The theory of evolution continues to improve as we learn more about the biosystem; it is not static and immune to new evidence, unlike a certain religious theory.
There are many competing explanations for quantum gravity too; does this mean that gravity is not real?
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
I don't know; do you have a living coelacanth in your aquarium? If so, show it to me. And then explain what that has to do with your attacks on evolution theory.
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
Macroevolution and microevolution share exactly the same mechanism, and the predictions of evolution have been proven true on countless occasions. "Dr. Dino" only distinguishes between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" by pretending that the process of evolution would magically hit some kind of "wall" and stop after a while. This is like claiming that you can have "micro-erosion" of rock but not "macro-erosion", hence you can't make the grand canyon with a river.
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Please clarify. At no point did we leap directly from hydrogen to humans.
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
No, everything came from everything. The universe has always been here. Time is a property of spacetime, which is a property of the universe. There was no time before the universe. Yes, I know, you will say the same about God, but there is one major distinction: we can verify that the universe exists.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
I am sure that my answers are the only ones which are reasonable given the information at hand. I am also sure that saying "God did it" does not explain anything, since it's the same as saying that "unknown" is a valid solution to a mathematical equation.
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Less, since none of my answers depend on objects which cannot be observed. They all require only the universe (whose existence is not in question), the laws of chemistry (whose existence is not in question), and the mechanism of natural selection (which has been verified through observation).
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
Yes, but there is no particular reason to believe this is the case. Until you can show some particular reason, it is a totally irrational "theory".
If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Define God in some testable manner. Note that the Biblical God is quite testable, since there are many predictions generated by the Bible. Unfortunately, it's trivially easy to show that many of them are untrue, such as his ludicrous claim (in the Book of Job) that hailstones are stored in warehouses in case of war, rather than being formed through atmospheric precipitative processes.
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
Yes. It is the only rational explanation for our observations which relies solely on phenomena and/or objects whose existence can be verified through observation. It is as reliable as the theory of planetary movement through gravity rather than angels pushing them through their orbits.
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Is he arguing that belief in evolution makes you a bad person? That's quite a pitiful line of reasoning.
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
* It is all they have been taught.
On the contrary, far more people know creationism than evolution, since the study of scientific principles requires much more time and effort than "God did it".
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
Again, is he trying to imply that all atheists are immoral? This is a rather ridiculous way to prove that a scientific theory doesn't work.
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Put on your tinfoil hats, people. Dr. Dino is now resorting to the "big evil conspiracy" theory in which evolution is propagated against the will of the world's scientists, who are cowering in fear, afraid to admit the truth. And who is running this global conspiracy? Could it be ... SATAN???
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
Prove I'm wrong. Demonstrate an alternate theory which is logical. Note that "God did it" is not a logical explanation of anything, unless you can show how
God did it. Otherwise, I could simply say "Nature did it" and have an equally undeniable yet hopelessly vague "explanation".
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
This "conspiracy of silence among scientists" argument is quite frankly stupid.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Of those, the only one that has been legitimately disproved was Piltdown Man, and that was disproven by other scientists
, not by creationists. Leave it to a creationist to use the honesty of scientists as proof against itself.
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Should parents be allowed to require that geology not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of rock formation such as "God did it?" Should parents be allowed to require that astrophysics not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to the theory that angels push the planets around? Should parents be allowed to require that meteorology not be taught in their school system unless equal time is given to the theory that God makes and keeps hailstones in warehouses in the sky, as described in the Book of Job?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
"False dilemma" fallacy. What if there is a Great Spirit, as the Native Americans believed? What if there is Brahma, as the Hindus believe? What if there is Enlightenment, as the Buddhists believe? What if the universe itself is God, rather than God being a weirdo who makes creatures and then punishes them for following their own nature? Pointless speculation about that which we cannot know is irrelevant to a rational evaluation of a scientific theory.
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
Present it all you like, so long as you do it in a "comparative religion" class where you also discuss other religious explanations for the origins of the universe. But do not force it into a science class where it does not belong. Science is about describing the observable universe via rational means, using observable phenomena.
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks?
Why do you insist upon trying to teach religion as a science
, rather than teaching it as a religion?
It is just a religious worldview.
Yet it happens to rely exclusively on phenomena and objects whose existence can be verified; something you cannot say about every other "religion".