Budikka666 wrote:

Terraz Barabel wrote:

Budikka666 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4828078.stm

Budikka

Let me guess. A virus evoled into a virus, and it is now called... a
virus. I see

You can keep running Jabriol, but you can't hide your stench. I'm
still waiting on you finding the guts to answer these intelligently:

Snipped..................

The questions has been answered.

I am far from Jabriol but I wouldn't mind trying this wee quiz

5. We have no known-for-a-fact examples of gods creating universes.
True or false?

true however, we have no known-for-a-fact evidence that Plato existed, or
Socrates. The only knowledge we have of them is a written history. If we
consider that Plato actually existed based on the written evidence, then
from illogical standpoint, there is evidence for gods creating the univer=

(I would obviously agree that there are no "examples" which can be curren=

scientifically tested)

6. If we know humans create cars, but we do not know that gods create
universes, trying to pretend that finding a car abandoned in the desert
leaves one in the same position, vis-a-vis its origins, as we are in
trying to understand the universe is an irredeemably braindead
proposition.
True or false?

false, and inflammatory/prejudiced.

I saw from your prior posting that your understanding of genetics/virology
is fairly poor.

It seems from your latest question that your understanding
of logic is equally less well-established.

The logic behind intelligent
design is

that when we see complexity in the world around us it is virtually
always due to some type of design. Automobiles are one example.

Languages
another,

computers are another. When we see all of these things we know
that they were designed and built.

We take those specifics and we derive an
axiom; complexity demands design.

Jabriol specific question. But to add slightly. The fossil record has a
number of potential flaws when used as a reverse engineering tool.

Sediment
can be laid down very rapidly (have you seen any video of New Orleans
recently?) Or sediment can be laid down very slowly (watch the video of =

lunar module in the Apollo days). If someone goes to New Orleans fifty
years from now and he finds a frog at the bottom of a 3 foot deep layer of
mud and he finds a fish at the top of that layer then would it be reasona=

for that person to surmise that a fish developed later than a frog? Could
he reasonably "date" the layers in that mud? Of course not, however,
therein lies the difficulty. Can we would scientific certainty know how
quickly sediment was laid down.

True, but important to note it is a POTENTIAL intermediate stage, it's qu=

possible that God created Archaeopteryx as he was

9. The okapi, an animal alive and well today, and biologically related
to the giraffe is pretty much what a transitional giraffe could have
looked like.
True or false?

True, but the same caveat as question #8. This COULD have looked like...=

11. Something akin to a mouse could reasonably change 300 genes over 60
million years to become either human or a modern mouse.
True or false?

False. If you are trying to ask the question is there are only a 300 gen=

difference between a mouse and human the answer may be yes

(to be honest I'm
not certain about the genetic difference between a mouse and human)

however,
there is no reasonable mechanism for this change to occur over 60 million
years.

If random chance is to be the mechanism then the "engine" of random
chance runs downhill not uphill.

Mice would've been extinct long before
they could have developed new beneficial features as the majority of the
changes would have been detrimental.

12. It is possible to clearly and scientifically define the Biblical
"kind" as used in the Noah's ark story in Genesis.
True or false?

true, they reproduce after their kind.

Therefore the ability to interbreed
is the definition driven at by the Genesis account. (Ironic that the
ability to breed and yeild fertile offspring is part of the scientific
definition of species). Understand, you are using the term "
scientifically" to narrow the definition. The text states that they
produced offspring after their kind. The kind is defined by the ability =

produce offspring.

13. There is a mechanism in genetics or biochemistry which prevents one
"kind" of organism varying into another "kind".
True or false?

True, they either do not produce offspring, or produce infertile offspring

14. Evolutionists hold that modern amphibians evolved from modern
fish.
True or false?

true

(actually, the answer to all of these following questions is false.
Evolutionists, to the best of my knowledge hold that modern amphibians
evolved from ancient amphibians who ultimately derived from ancient fish.
Therefore I would consider the wording of your question to be poorly
structured. It almost seems to be designed to be a trick question.

15. Evolutionists hold that modern reptiles evolved from modern
amphibians.
True or false?

True, see the answer to question 14

16. Evolutionists hold that modern birds evolved from modern reptiles.
True or false?

True, see the answer to question 14

17. Evolutionists hold that modern mammals evolved from modern
reptiles.
True or false?

True, see the answer to question 14

18. Creationist letters published as a joke in a science publication
are of the same standing as peer-reviewed papers published in
recognized science journals.
True or false?

Again, an inflammatory statement that shows nothing but bigotry.

Are you
suggesting that peer reviewed scientific journals have nothing better to =

than publish articles purely for humor? I think that's unlikely.

In fact
it shows your double standard. You talk about intelligent design/theists=

not being published in peer review journals and then when they are publis=

you say that it was a joke. Your being intellectually dishonest again.

19. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that calls the Theory of
Evolution into serious question.
True or false?

I would say to be honest I am not sure.

I think it is likely there has been
one however I would be speaking based on a guess not based on any hard
evidence.

20. There has been at least one peer-reviewed science paper published
in a recognized, refereed science journal that establishes a better
theory to explain the distribution and variety of life on Earth today
than the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?

Again, I am not certain however I would assume there has been at least on=

21. There has been posted, in one place in a thread somewhere in these
news groups, a supported and referenced *list* of the colossal holes in
the Theory of Evolution.
True or false?

I'm not sure

22. It is hypocritical to demand peer-reviewed published evidence from
others in refutation of non-existent material favoring your own
arguments.
True or false?

I would accept that as true. It only as hypocritical as claiming that be=

published in a peer reviewed published journal was done as a joke.

Therefore prior "errors" purported to prove evolution are
completely reasonable. Prior errors such as Piltdown man only indict tho=

who perpetrated, or latched onto the falsehoods. It does not indict all =

"evolutionists".

25. The match between human DNA and banana DNA is:
A. 95%
B. 75%
C. 60%
D. Greater than 50%
E. 50%

F.: none of the above. This is a question which shows an incredibly poor
understanding of genetics.