Jackson Wheat

February 25, 2015

21 Facts that Evolutionists Cant Answer
I am seriously hoping that the video 21 Facts that Evolutionists Cant Answer was a
joke. The questionnaire is a serious of quotes from creationists and statements that make the
person reading the questions realize immediately that the person who wrote the questions knows
nothing about evolution. Before I begin to answer the questions, I need to make a distinction:
the person who wrote the questions probably means evolutionary biologists instead of
evolutionists. Evolutionary biology is a field of science, while evolutionism is a philosophic
worldview. This distinction will probably not make a difference while answering the questions,
but I wanted to point that out anyway. I just hope that this questionnaire was made jokingly
because it is punctuated with pictures of animals crossed with other animals, and the
questionnaire-maker says, Have you seen me? Evolutionists think Im real. The pictures are
random animals that have been smashed together, and the questionnaire-maker believes, because
he or she has no idea what evolution is, that evolutionary biologists actually think those
organisms exist. For example the first picture is a dog, I think, with the head of an eagle, and,
yes, one of the pictures is the croca-duck. This is supposed to be some sort of attack on
intermediate species, I think, because the idea of an invertebrate becoming a fish, a fish
becoming an amphibian, an amphibian becoming a reptile, or a reptile becoming a mammal is
just ridiculous, right? But then again, all organisms are intermediate species. No eagle ever
mated with a dog and produced an offspring that is a cross between the two because species
defines organisms as organisms that cannot mate with each other. Organisms that can mate with
each other are part of the same species.
1. Why are the planets round?
This is not even a question about evolution; it is a question of physics. Planets are round
because of gravity, and I am not a physics expert so I cannot give much more than that. I can,
however, look up the theories for the spherical shape of planets and other celestial bodies online.
Just to point out, celestial bodies are not perfectly round; they all have certain imperfections.
Perhaps the next question will actually have something to do with evolutionary biology.
2. Go to the zoo and tell me, why doesnt a chimpanzee give birth to a man?
The better question is, Why is this person trying to debunk evolution when he or she
does not know what evolution is? A chimpanzee never gives birth to a human because they are
two different species. And another thing, no chimpanzee ever gave birth to a human because
humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. They both diverged from a primate about
six million years ago due to natural pressures, and they are completely separate today.
3. Have you ever seen a mountain form?
No, have you? Mountains form extremely slowly due to tectonic plates, and even if
someone ever saw a mountain form then the author would probably just chalk it up to divine
movement. Scientists have a very good idea of how mountains form, and there is nothing
questionable about it. Is the questionnaire-maker suggesting that one must see something to
prove something? What about crime scenes; sometimes no one sees a crime occur, but the
investigators usually find the criminal.

4. Why doesnt new life show up in a jar of peanut butter?

I actually saw this one in a creationist video last year; the creationists were making some
case that because life did not jump out of a jar of peanut butter, abiogenesis is impossible. That
is about the equivalent of saying childbirth disproves that the Sun makes heat. First, certain
amino acids, most of which are not found in peanut butter; proteins; and lipids are needed for life
to form. I get the feeling that this person has no idea what abiogenesis actually is. Second,
peanut butter is specifically designed so that life does not get inside the jar. If it did then people
would not want to buy the peanut butter because it would be contaminated.
5. If the big bang started as a singularitywho held up the singularity?
I do not even know what this question is asking. Does the author think that physicists
think that a person was holding the singularity that created our universe? That does not make
any sense.
6. A painting had a paintertherefore the Universe had a maker.
This is a silly argument that I hear from creationists all the time. They claim that since
objects created by humans have creators, objects not created by humans must have been created
by a god. It makes no sense and has no evidence; if this person can show me objective evidence
of a god creating anything then I will change my position. Until that happens, I will remain
skeptical of the notion. One cannot prove that a tree or a cloud had a creator, so how can one
prove that the universe had a creator. And besides, which creator created the universe? Every
religion posits that its god created the universe, so this notion is impractical. This is a declarative
statement that is devoid of evidence.
7. (The questionnaire actually says this is #21) If a monkey gave birth to a man, who
would he (or she) mate with?
First, the premise is wrong. A monkey has never and will never give birth to a Homo
sapien because that defies the definition of species. This is just another question that proves the
questioner has no idea of anything involving evolutionary biology.
8. How can you explain gravity?
While this question does not relate to evolution, it is a fair question. Scientists have not
explained gravity yet, and the theory of gravity is incomplete. Is the author suggesting that
because scientists have not yet explained gravity, scientists are wrong?
9. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
For the third time, humans did not evolve from contemporary primates. This question
could really be asked of any organism. If mammals evolved from reptiles, why are there still
reptiles? If reptiles evolved from amphibians, why are there still amphibians, and so on? If
eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, why are there still prokaryotes? Just because an organism
evolves from another organism, the first organism is not going to necessarily go extinct. That is
the case many times though; the newly evolved organism is better in the environment than the
older organism, and the new organism may force the old organism into extinction. That is
survival of the fittest.

10. If the world is millions of years old, why is it only 2008?

This question makes me think that this whole thing is a joke. Someone cannot actually
think that the birth of Jesus of Nazareth began the universe; not even the staunchest creationists
believe that. That would destroy the entire Old Testament of the Bible. I also need to point out
that the picture between this question and the next one is a sign that reads, Anti-God is AntiAmerican. Anti-American is Treason. Traitors lead to Civil War. First, no, American is not
equivalent to Christianity, as I pointed out in my last paper. Second, the Civil War was fought
between Christians who used the Bible to justify slavery and Christians who used the Bible
against slavery.
11. If I throw dirt up in the air, what are the odds it will fall into the formation of a living
man?
I think that this question is meant to discredit abiogenesis, despite the fact that we do not
know everything about abiogenesis. What are the odds? Pretty small, I would assume; I do not
know of any scientist who thinks that the first prokaryotic organisms were created from dirt.
This is about as silly as Eric Hovind saying that humans evolved from rocks. Also, I would say
that this is more of an argument against the biblical account of Adams creation. Adam was
made from dirt, which is taken from Greek mythology, so what are the odds that that would
happen?
12. Can you see electricity?
I think this is the argument that Ray Comfort brought up about atheists not believing in
things they cannot see. Atheists cannot see atoms or gravity, but they believe in those. The fact
is not that atheists do not believe what they cannot see; the fact is that they do not believe in
things that have no proof. There is plenty of proof for atoms and gravity, not to mention germs
and cells (all of which are theories), and atheists believe that those exist. I would imagine that
the questioner does too.
13. Science changes. The book of Genesis is perfect.
This is just another declarative statement that is devoid of evidence. Yes, science
changes as new evidence appears; religion holds its view regardless of the evidence. That is why
science works and religion does not. And by the way, Genesis is not perfect; there are plenty of
contradictions in it. For example Genesis 1:25 says, So God created man in his own image, in
the image of God created he him; male and female created he them, but Genesis 2:18 says,
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help
meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every
fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD
God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed
up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a
woman, and brought her unto the man.
14. The holy Bible is the truth because the Bible says its the truth.
This is another question that makes me think this entire questionnaire is just a joke. It is
true because it says it is true? If I say I saw a unicorn then by that logic I did actually see a
unicorn regardless of whether or not I actually saw a unicorn. The author seems to be saying that
if one claims one is telling the truth then one is telling the truth. I do not understand that logic.

15. Evolution is a religion, and science leads to killing people.

First, evolution is a scientific field, not a religion. Second, religion leads more people to
kill each other than science does. Science may invent weapons to aid people in conflicts, but
science has never been the cause of conflicts, except maybe when religious people are killing
science people.
16. Scientists around the world are all jointly involved in a conspiracy against god!
This is neither a question nor has anything to do with evolution. It is a conspiracy
hypothesis and is just about as viable as an Illuminati conspiracy.
17. Bananas are perfectly designed for the human hand.
This is another quote from Ray Comfort, and his fallacy of designed bananas has been
disproved. In fact moments after he made the statement about bananas, someone informed him
that the bananas were genetically modified to be easier to hold. This statement proves that the
author has never done any research on genetically modified food.
18. Millions of years for a monkey to turn into a man? Monkeys dont live that long.
I am going to just go with monkeys turning into humans for the moment so that I can
quickly explain evolution. Evolution is biologic change in populations over generations; a single
organism does not become an entirely new species. A single monkey did not become a Homo
sapien; rather, a population of monkeys eventually evolved into Homo sapiens. But back to
monkeys becoming humans, no contemporary primates became humans. The ancestor that
humans share with even the most closely related primates died millions of years ago.
19. Why would a man want to have sex with a monkey?
I do not know how this question relates to evolution, and I neither know the answer nor
would I want to know.
20. Archaeologists always remove the human remains first when they find a dinosaur so
they can continue the LIE.
Archaeologists do not dig for dinosaurs; by definition they dig for humans. But when
digging downward, human remains are always found before dinosaurs because humans lived
after dinosaurs. Rocks are layered from oldest on bottom to youngest on top. This just sounds
like another conspiracy hypothesis.
21. Can you speak monkey? Didnt think so
A human not being able to verbally communicate with a primate defeats evolution? Most
humans cannot verbally communicate with each other; does that mean languages do not change?
So as you can see, this was a terrible mesh of creationist propaganda that amounted to
nothing in the end. I am still wondering whether or not the person who made this list is serious.