10 Questions For Evolutionists

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

10 Questions to Ask Evolutionists:

  1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
  2. Where did matter come from?
  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
  6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
  7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
  8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
  9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since 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 the origin of reproduction?)
  10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

I’ve got many more where this came from, but let’s start with these ten.


  1. Jason September 15, 2010 1:00 am Reply

    Hi Kent,

    There is just no keeping you down is there? :)

    As evolutionists have no rules to their religious view short of deny that the Biblical account of creation is true. I guess that in order to answer your questions they would have to use their “imaginations” again and make up some more stuff, and call it “scientific” in order to validate it.

    To both Kent and the administrator of this blog,
    Far be it from me to tell you what you should or should not post upon your blog, but is it not the case that we are not supposed to debate upon this blog?

    I was under the impression that (www.drdino.com/blog) is more the place for such confrontational posts, whereas this blog is supposed to be more personal to you (Kent).

    I only mention as a post such as this one will undoubtedly invite a response that ‘one’ would debate with.

    Lots of love

    Jason x

  2. Paul S. September 15, 2010 7:14 pm Reply

    1-7 have nothing to do with the theory of biological evolution, as defined by scientists. You can make up your own definitions all you’d like, if that keeps you happy.
    8. A single cell wouldn’t evolve the ability to sexually reproduce – individuals do not evolve, populations do. Some bacteria are capable of exchanging information (sex) yet can reproduce via prokaryotic fission.
    9. This is a behavioral ecology question. Regardless, organisms respond to environmental stimuli and can alter their reproduction accordingly.
    10. English characters and Chinese ideograms have nothing to do with evolution, and it is a terrible analogy. Gene (or even genome) duplication events can cause a single gene to be present in two copies, freeing one gene from stabilizing selective pressure and allowing it to accumulate mutations, which could confer alternate functions.

    These questions are quite trite, and not difficult to answer.

  3. Hans September 15, 2010 9:15 pm Reply


    This is valuable and needed material for us the readers just as the encouraging other posts or writings. These are resources, in my humble opinion.

    I thank The Lord for the encouragement I have received from the letters, blogs in the past few years.

    I wish I could get the whole blog or a digital copy of the whole set of blogs that have been.

    Keep on keeping on with-for-through Jesus!

  4. The Welder’s Wife September 17, 2010 1:05 am Reply

    Those are excellent questions, Brother Hovind!
    The Hebrew Text says that there are 2 waters above the Firmament. Birds fly on the ‘face’ of the Firmament and the stars are located in the Firmament. That’s a pretty big area! On The First Day, God took a mass of water (size unknown) & incased it with His Holy Spirit, Who caused the whole thing to vibrate by hovering over it, similar to how a bird (Eagle or Humming Bird) hovers over something. And at the same time He caused the whole thing to turn/spin in a complete circle in the same amount of time as a Sabbath day of Rest (about 24 hours as we know it).
    In a river there are whirlpools that have ‘space’ in the center, and in a similar manner, when I’ve seen pictures of clusters of stars in outer space, those clusters look like they are spinning in some kind of hidden whirlpool type of situation.
    So how big was the mass of water, and how fast did God spin it, and what was the rate of the vibrations?
    And if God stops the whirlpool from spinning, will all the stars fall?


  5. Jason September 18, 2010 2:20 pm Reply

    Dear Hans,

    I agree Kent’s work is indeed valuable and needed, I am forever grateful for the strength and encouragement he has given to both my family and I through the products that he has made freely available.

    The response from “Paul S”, has given me great confidence to use at least some of these questions when speaking to evolutionists.

    I might not always agree with Kent right the way down the line, but I find him (as an evangelist of note) the most honest and willing to speak out against the ”Beast” of any evangelist I have ever come across.

    It does not surprise me one bit that he has been imprisoned.

    Case in point, the Pope is visiting Britain, yet the main stay of opposition to his visit is coming from Atheists, Gay rights and Pro-abortion campaigners.

    “An e-petition submitted by veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell called on the Prime Minister ‘to disassociate the British government from the Pope’s intolerant views ahead of the Papal visit to Britain in September 2010’ and attracted over 12,000 signatures”

    The Catholic Church always led by an INFALLABLE (according to their doctrine) Pope has been responsible for, and supported in, the some/most of the heinous events in history. The inquisition, Crusades and Nazi Holocaust of the Jews are always swept under the carpet; never mentioned or ‘their part’ examined (lest we remember!!)

    The previous Popes apology for some of these events was as hollow as could be, scapegoating “some people” rather than pointing the finger at the successive Papal leaders who promoted/supported such acts…

    “We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed toward followers of other religions,”

    A Mormon or a Jehovah’s Witness would commonly and correctly be assessed as unacceptable in ranks of the Christian Church, as their Gospel does not lead to salvation.

    Yet, the Catholic Gospel WILL NOT LEAD TO SALVATION,

    If that wasn’t enough!!!
    These men (each successive Pope) go around claiming to be the INFALLIBLE Head of the Christian Church EVEN calling themselves the “Vicar of Christ”.

    But where does their opposition come from?
    Hardly a voice is heard in the media from the ranks of the Christian Church. Sadly the Pope sees his main opposition as being “Hard-line aggressive Atheists”.


    To all the Hard-line Aggressive Atheists reading this post,

    You have successfully embarrassed the Christian Church for becoming the Catholic Church’s ‘percieved’ main stay of opposition. Even if (in mine and Biblical opinion) many of the reasons you oppose are misguided, you have correctly discerned an Evil Empire which sadly many Christians are oblivious to.


    When I speak to Atheists, the main opposition I receive comes through, not evolution vs. creation, but rather a misunderstanding stemming from an association that Christians have with the Catholic Church. I find that Much of what Atheists Hate about Christianity is actually a Hatred of the Catholic Church & ‘their’ doctrine.

    “”CHRIST”” is therefore perceived as Guilty by association.

    Why would any intelligent person perceive salvation could be found though such evil.

    There is so much more that could be said on this subject but this blog is not supposed to be a place for debate. For anybody wishing to learn more please visit the website of my friend Peter Laird;


    Peter and I don’t agree on everything (the subject of Apostles being a sore point). However, we do stand together on the correct gospel of salvation and our opposition to the Catholic Church.
    As Kent would say “Eat the meat and spit out the bones”.

    His website is a VERY Valuable resource for learning.
    Please go study.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  6. Jason September 18, 2010 2:41 pm Reply

    Dear Administrator,

    I am sad to say that reading this blog really does give me eye strain.

    Please could this blog be redesigned so the writing is anything but (what seems to be) the smallest size font available?

    The colours might look pretty, but the column of words takes up only 1/3 of my screen and are so small I have to make a special effort just to read it.

    This blogs design used to use the full width of the webpage, using a reasonable size font, what happened?

    What this blog has gained in beautification it has lost on readability:

    Which is more important for a blog, beauty or readability?

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

  7. Hans September 18, 2010 9:06 pm Reply


    I agree with you on the eye strain, though you can use your own browser to zoom in(increase the size of the text), under the view tab in most. Maybe an alt +, key stroke will work. But this combination of colors does not make for the most readability.

    Thanks for the reminder on the Catholic Church. You are right and it is long too long forgotten by most all Christians. When I was younger, it was said the USA became great when personal relationships with God, Families, farms, and so on were strong. It has been said that the Foxes book of Martyrs was required reading for every child. This was a cornerstone of the bedrock of the freedom we have enjoyed for over 200 years. (separation of church power and state power)
    On a side note, funny just a few hours ago, I just caught myself using the phrase “Is the Pope Catholic” as a ‘tongue in cheek’ response for an obvious, yes. Then the thought came, is the answer to that really no? In the sense that the Catholic Church is not really the Catholic(universal) Church of the Bible… The one True Church of Christ. Has the meaning of Catholic been changed to mean other than it once did? Or does the so called apostles creed’s use of the word mean and refer the catholic church of Rome? Well the first two dictionaries that came up gave these.

    Here are two Dictionary definitions of catholic:
    cath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk)
    1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
    2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
    3. Catholic
    a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
    b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
    c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
    d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.

    catholic [?kæ??l?k ?kæ?l?k]
    1. universal; relating to all men; all-inclusive
    2. comprehensive in interests, tastes, etc.; broad-minded; liberal
    [from Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, from katholou in general, from kata- according to + holos whole]
    catholically , catholicly [k????l?kl?] adv

    OooH! Guess it is a mater of having a capital ‘C’ or small ‘c’.


    So the meaning has been taken over? …

    Next subject is the use of the word Christian, and Christians and all that is done under that name. :)

  8. Jason September 19, 2010 3:21 am Reply

    Hi Hans,

    You make a very interesting point on the use of the word “catholic”; maybe its original meaning has been lost. The same problem could also be happening with the word “christian”, in that the name “Christian” is generally given to any group that says that they lift Jesus up as their spiritual icon.

    However to me, in my ignorance, I use the word “Catholic” only with a capital “C” to mean the Church of Rome. I can’t help but resent the name “Christian” being given to anybody other than those saved by the Grace of God. For a definition on what “Saved by the Grace of God” means I would point to the “Baptist Church” for a definition, for as far as I can see it is Biblically correct.

    I ask myself whether I should hold onto the name “Christian” as a name to which I personally identify myself with. The Pope calls himself a “Christian”, as do Mormons & Jehovah’s Witnesses too;
    The name “Christian” therefore has been dragged through the dirt to a massive degree.

    The problem is I personally find myself to be neither a Baptist nor an anything else denominationally. I therefore do define myself as a “Christian” & “Saved” (Baptist definition), being ‘one’ who tries to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12) only because no other name fits me so perfectly well by the correct “Biblical Definition”.

    It is said that the best forgeries resemble the original article. The Catholic gospel however does not resemble that of the true Christian at all.
    Mary is Jesus’ mother, the vessel that God used in order to give His Son birth, and thus ends her Biblical role; there is no other part to play.
    The Catholic Church pray to Mary deifying her as the route to get to Jesus.

    To the Christian the Bible is the Word of God; it defines for us Gods will and instructions for our Salvation.
    The Catholic Church banned the Bible favouring the words of all the supposed “Infallible” Popes as the source of Gods words, and ‘they’ define for us the way that ‘one’ might hope to be saved………. well eventually……. If you are lucky….
    (ok the Catholics did eventually change their mind on banning the Bible, but only to say that the Bible is only a source of inspiration and nothing more).

    A Christian will know that Christ’s suffering & death upon the cross is payment enough for our sins & salvation.
    A Catholic will see the need for more suffering….. much more suffering….. the more suffering the better….. in fact the Catholic god simply cannot get enough of our suffering, it is like sweet perfume to him.

    The Catholic mass killing of the Albigenses (among others)during the inquisition is justified by the Catholic Church because the Albigenses were wrong in the way that they taught Christianity. (as if killing those who have a different belief to yourself is correct Christian doctrine).

    The true Christian will spread his belief by the telling of the gospel, not by a policy of “Convert or Die”.

    The list of differences goes on, it seems that the only reason that the Catholic Church is so dominant is because they have relentlessly killed off their opposition, that and a policy of prolific breeding & baptising babies which have no concept of choice as to what they want to believe in.

    The sad thing is that the main perceived opposition to the Catholic Church now comes from Atheists, not Christians, it truly is an embarrassment.

    Lots of Love

    Jason x

    You are right on the issue of colour, enlarging the writing helps but my eyes still struggle with the colours.

  9. RayJa September 21, 2010 11:32 pm Reply

    Catholicism is so deceptive. As my friend above said, I dont know how a well thinking “Christian” could be taken in/away be its fallacies.
    Just do a bit of reading into history, and it will all become evident.

    Thank you bro Hovind, for this 10 point set of questions. They’re good resources :)
    I still pray for you every time you come to mind. I pray for God to strengthen you, and show you his purpose in all of this.

    @ Jason – In mozilla firefox, pressing CTRL and ‘+’ will zoom the page, you can make it as big as you want :)

    In opera, it is SHIFT and the ‘+/=’ Key.
    Dont use IE, but it might be able to zoom as well.
    -All the best.

  10. David October 11, 2010 10:21 pm Reply

    I could start by responding to the 10 questions in turn, but that is clearly a waste of time. It would not be worth typing each individual letter of every word because whatever answers you are given, however logical, they will not change your opinions about science and the search for knowledge. You are a prejudiced man, sir, and it is a great shame that less intelligent people than you will read this post and agree with the premise of your argument without trying to understand the issues themselves. Then again, that has been the nature of religion for many years and long before Christian Science and its forebears usurped paganism to become the leading religion (at least in the West).

    I would not pretend to say there is definiately no god, as there are so many questions unanswered and it is illogical to close off any possibility. However, I would argue that the simple fact that scientists would try to answer your questions through logic, search and debate is the single greatest thing about mankind. Mankind is not afraid to challenge, question and discuss in our attempts to understand the world. Much more favourable than refusing to question something on the basis that religous dogma tells us we shouldn’t or needn’t.

    And to all those who have read this far and are outraged with the mere promotion of scientific debate, take this opportunity to realise that the computer you are writing on is a consequence of the very determination to take on such questions as Dr Hovind asks and try to provide an answer.

  11. roman March 8, 2012 11:49 am Reply

    I think you should a do a little more reading and inquire a little bit more about the catholic church before doing any judgment..

    Read the 1 st century fathers of the church .. they are pretty straightfoward about it advocating in their teaching the real presence of christ in the Eucharist , the role of tradition and ” peter ” the first pope… Indeed , the Church that was established by Christ is the Catholic Churc that exists today

Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.