#6 really isn't that great of a question.

you can quite easily answer that one as "no", since the question implies that things just came to be out of nowhere, which is contradictory of evolution, going all the way back to the original self replicating molecules that we think eventually became what we think of as life.

as for the laws of thermodynamics, it's usually best to mention the distinction between open and closed systems and how those laws apply to them. The earth is NOT a closed system, we have energy constantly pouring in from the sun, if that wasn't the case, we wouldn't even be alive, let alone have evolved.

one can also argue from a standpoint of informational entropy that evolution is a result of entropy in action.

Here's my updated version:

Thanks for the help!!

1. I accept, not believe, evolution because it is the best rational fit for the history of living things that science currently has. It makes verifiable predictions of species variation, and instances of evolution happening all around us can be readily observed. There is no alternate explanation that provides verifiable, repeatable evidence. Further, the vast vast vast majority of people that study evolution in detail, for a living, agree on it's validity due to these repeatable, verifiable evidence and prediction.

2. As mentioned above, I accept, not believe, evolution because it is the most rational explanation for why life is the way it is. It uses actual scientific observations and the scientific method to accurately predict and verify species variation. Further, following Occram's Razor, it is the most simple explanation for the above.

3. This question is completely faulty, and reflects your lack of knowledge. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are completely consistent with evolution. Biogenesis and Cause and Effect are not laws of science. You are most likely misapplying the Second Law in assuming that the earth is a closed system. Rather, it is an open system, with a constant stream of energy pouring in from the sun, amongst other sources.

4. The first and second laws of thermodynamics, to mention a couple.

5. There are a number of explanations, none of which have been scientifically proven to an extent for me to espouse one. There are theories involving RNA clays, comets, lightning, etc. These all have reasonable basis in science, and we are looking for predictions and observations to verify or disprove them. Science is the ongoing pursuit of knowledge. The lack of a definite answer does not lend any credence to a supernatural being - rather, it is just a question not yet definitively answered yet.

6. This question is faulty because it implies that things just came to be out of nowhere, which is contradictory of evolution, going all the way back to the original self replicating molecules that we think eventually became what we think of as life.

But, just to play ball and assume your question isn't absurd, at best it reflects a lack of knowledge:

Spontaneous Generation was the theory hundreds of years ago, During or around the Renaissance, when scientists believed that things and creatures could randomly appear from nowhere. The idea came from when maggots would seem to be "created" on old meat that layed out for too long. This theory was proved wrong when they took an open-air piece of meat and put it next to a piece of meat in a closed container. Of course, the closed container piece had no maggots and the open-air one did. This claim has nothing to do with evolution.

7 and 8. This is a leading question that assumes mass and energy were created. I think existance is axiomatic, and was not created from nothing. It has always been, and always will be, just as the laws of thermodynamics suggest. Science cannot currently describe the state or movement of energy/matter before the Big Bang, but I do know it was there. Again, there isn't any evidence that the Universe as we know it was created from nothing. There is evidence that it changed forms.

9. Again, this is a leading question giving only 2 possibilities. Rather than design (which there is no evidence of), or "accident", I vote for naturalistic and probable. If you flip a coin a million times, the chances of getting them all heads is very very small. However, if you try this experiment hundreds of trillions of times, you'll eventually get it done. And, along the way, you'd probably have a number of occurances of 900,000+ heads. Further, evolution suggests that only positive, life enriching traits are passed on to the next generation because the negative ones cause an early death and no offspring. It's a natural, verifiable, observable explanation.

10. This question is too broad to even approach. I guess the best answer is Natural Processes. What does this have to do with evolution? Further, this is yet another leading question, and a subset of #11, in that there has to be a cause to cause everything.

11. This question has nothing to do with evolution, and is a preceding question to #10.

Now, my questions for you in regards to evolution::

1. Why does there have to be a cause?
2. Assuming a Creator, please explain auto-immune diseases, cancers and birth defects.
3. What non-biblical, scientifically verifiable evidence do you have that God, and not a pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, or other supernatural entity created the universe as we know it?
4. How can you prove the supernatural exists?
5. Why do you insist that the universe was created?
6. Does the absence of a precise answer for everything mean that an entire theory is invalid?

--------------------
Now, for some other questions:

Let's just start with the earth being flat.

On your blog profile, http://www.blogger.com/profile/3995347, you cite Isaiah 40:22 to claim "The Bible affirmed that the earth was round long before science discovered it."

Isaiah 40:22 reads ""He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

We have two conditions here:

1- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth is a flat circle.

2- Isaiah 40:22 is claiming that the Earth has a circle above it.

If we were to take condition #1, then we are left with a clear and irrefutable contradiction between Isaiah 40:22 and some of the Bible's verses that I mentioned above in the article, because a flat circle doesn't have "four corners", and ironically in either case, we still have a scientifically false claim about the Earth's shape.

If we were to take condition #2, then it doesn't prove that the Earth is an egg-shaped figure, and Isaiah 40:22 surely becomes irrelevant to this subject.

7. Isn't a circle a two-dimensional, flat object? The Earth is slighlty egg-shaped, not even a sphere.

8. How do you resolve the inherent contradiction between that verse and the following verses?

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"

"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"

"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)"

I wouldn't pay to much attention to the scientific rebbutals, and instead focus on comeing across as interlectually superior and look at his questions in the way that a teacher does to his students questions.

Say something like:

"Hey [insert name], hows it goin?

It's great you've got into biology, I also have an interest in that kinda stuff. So lets tackel a few of your questions.

I'll start with question 1, I have quite a few reason for believeing in evolution, but the main reason has got to be the fossil record. I don't want to bore you with all the details, but looking at the stages between apes and humans we find a little over 2000 fossils making up about 20 sub-species between apes and humans. Take a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html for some cool finds. I know there have been a few fakes, on both sides of the fence, including one homo neanderthalensis, but considering there are over 400 of that particular sub-species its really not big an issue. On the other hand, every single fossil supposedly offering a different view has been proved false.

As for the laws of thermodynamics, well this reall is a stretch. The first law says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so I really don't see how this affects evolution. Its also irrelavent at the 'time' of the big bang because time literally faded into existance, so the words 'created' and 'destroyed' are meaningless in that situation. Simularly with the second..."

I should also point out that his questions are a copy & paste job, I've seen them before. So perhaps you could just copy and paste a few answers from talk orrigins.

None yet. I replied to my g/f, not to her brother, because I'm working her down from her literal biblical world. We went through that, and I actually sat through a Xian DVD "The Fossil Record: Evidence for the Bible" (which I highly recommend as a great lecture on how to sound convincing by picking and choosing and using a stream of non-sequitors). At the end, I pointed out the obvious logic errors, and I think she agreed. Then, I gave her a copy of the National Geographic article "Was Darwin Wrong?". Then, we went to a website linked through here that theorized that a fish eye could evolve from nothing in 1800 steps, all of which would be beneficial. Then, she got tired and we had to feed the dogs.

I also threw in the argument that many stars are more than 6000 light years away from us, and god would have had to not only create the stars out there and set them in motion, but also get their light most of the way to earth, too.

We also had a discussion that even if science hasn't postiively answered everything yet, that does not lend evidence for anything supernatural.

Another point we talked about it is that all palentologists and geologists probably arent involved in a vast conspiracy against christianity, and dont lie and make up science and cover for each other just because they are all assholes.

I will probably see her brother next Friday, but I'm not sure if I want to bring it up - he does take really good care of her 90 year old mother, and that is worth more to me than arguing a true whacko to nothingness.

Next stop, biblical errancy.

You'll have to clarify the meaning of a synoptic parallel (NRSV version) for me.