Talk:Question Evolution! - CMI's Rebuttals to Responses to Questions 9 through 15

q9/a1

This is just silly. Things die and there's an order to that.

q9/a2

If the earth is so young, where are all the Flood fossils? (And then explain population growth of Homo sapiens in 4000 years.) ^talk 23:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

q9/a3

Um, really? There are no fossils of extinct species?

q9/a5

There are multiple lines of evidence for evolution. Not so for creationism.

q13/a1

If it's not a breakthrough or significant, why are creationists so threatened by evolution? sterile^talk 19:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

q15/a1

Hold on, why are common features a evidence of common design? Isn't a Designer capable of different designs? Why is a omnipotent Designer so constrained? Creationists proclaim there is evidence of common design because a good designer recycles good design (and god is a good designer). They also criticize opponents for claiming that a. there is no evidence that this particular designer would choose any design paradigm at all since there's no evidenced of it making any choices or even existing, and b. good designers don't employ economy of design at the expense of absurd inefficiencies that would drive up production costs (laryngeal nerve).

Brainstorm for q11/a1

• Purely evolutionarily speaking, consciousness and morality have obvious advantages to the survival of the species.
• Once again: that a theory cannot answer every question is a sign that we should be looking for evidence, not that we should be dismissing the theory outright.
• Philosophy of Science is a very interesting topic. But in the end, just because we do not like the philosophical implications of a particular theory or hypothesis is not evidence against it, and visa versa.
• Evolution is not a philosophy. It may have philosophical implications, but, once again, that is not evidence for or against it.
• Many of those who accept evolution ”pontificate about religion and morals", in CMI's words. But this "pontification" is them expressing an opinion, not talking about science. They may complain that religion has attempted to pose a barrier to scientific understanding, but that is not them talking about the actual science. (This last point needs a lot of work. A lot of these points apply to answer 2 as well) The Mad World (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Q 10 answer.

I find it kind of funny that they write:

"Rebuttal: So evolution explains if creatures don’t change, and it explains if they do! How convenient."

In fact TOE, would have a problem if it could explain one situation but not the other. That fact that it can account for both situations is evidence that the theory works - not that it doesn't.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)