Run the gauntlet.

Do you know how stars formed?
"The formation of stars is one of the most fundamental problems in astrophysics...no current model can reproduce all of the observations." (Ward-Thompson, D., Isolated Star Formation: From Cloud Formation to Core Collapse, Science (4 Jan 2002): Vol. 295 no 5552, pp 76-81)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know how galaxies formed?
"There is something badly wrong with our standard picture of the origin of galaxies." (Pavel Kroupa, Mystery of the missing mini-galaxies, New Scientist 2722 (Aug 24 2009))
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know how planets formed?
“How the first stage of this process, primary accretion, works is a fundamental unsolved problem of planetary science.” (Cuzzi, Jeff. “Planets: the first movement.” Nature 448, 1003 Aug 30 2007)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know how life originated?

"Concerning the origin of life itself, the watershed between chemistry and biology, the transition between lifeless chemical activity and organized biological metabolism, there is no direct evidence at all. The crucial transition from disorder to order left behind no observable traces." (Freeman Dyson, Origins of Life (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 36.)

"The real issue is that genetic evolution alone has been found insufficient for an adequate causal explanation of all forms of phenotypic complexity, not only of something vaguely termed ‘macroevolution’. Hence, the micro–macro distinction only serves to obscure the important issues that emerge from the current challenges to the standard theory." (Muller GB. 2017 Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary. Interface Focus 7: 20170015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015)

How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software, and where did the very paculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows. (P. Davies, "Life force," New Scientist, vol. 163:2204 (18 Sep 1999), pp. 27-30.)

"Overbye notes that 'even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small.'" (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/)

Robert Shapiro explains that an explanation for the first self-replicating molecule "has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated" but "is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism." Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, page 207 (Summit Books, 1986).

"What creates life out of the inanimate compounds that make up living things? No one knows. How were the first organisms assembled? Nature hasn't given us the slightest hint. If anything, the mystery has deepened over time." Gregg Easterbrook, "Where did life come from?," Wired Magazine, page 108 (February, 2007).

"there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, page 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Are you absolutely certain these >900 Ph.D's and M.D.'s doubt Darwinism for invalid reasons?
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/faq/
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know know what the fossil record predominantly shows?
"The history of most fossil species includes tow [sic] features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J./The Panda's Thumb/1980/181-182)

"the oldest known feathers...are already modern in form and microscopic detail" (Martin and Czerkas. 2000. "The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic." American Zoology, 40:687-694)

"earliest feathers in the fossil record are modern in every respect, and no contemporary feather structure is unequivocally identifiable as primitive" (Carroll, R., Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1997.)

"When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 189 (Basic Books, 2001).

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, page 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).

"at least 20 Myr younger than Archaeopteryx." Carl C. Swisher III, Yuan-qing Wang, Xiao-lin Wang, Xing Xu, and Yuan Wang, "Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Lianoing, China" Nature, Vol. 400: 58-61 (July 1, 1999).

"Archaeopteryx is on the whole a point for Darwinists, but how important is it? Persons who come to the fossil evidence as convinced Darwinists will see a stunning confirmation, but skeptics will see a lonely exception to a consistent pattern of fossil disconfirmation." Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, page 81 (Intervarsity Press, 1993).

"the first human-like fossils appear so suddenly in the record that "it is hard at present to identify its immediate ancestry in east Africa. Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past.'" Robin Dennell & Wil Roebroeks,"An Asian perspective on early human dispersal from Africa," Nature, Vol. 438:1099-1104 (Dec. 22/29, 2005).

"show 'just how interesting and complex the human genus was and how poorly we understand the transition from being something much more apelike to something more humanlike.'" Daniel Lieberman, quoted in "Fossils in Kenya Challenge Linear Evolution," by John Noble Wilford, New York Times (August 9, 2007), at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/science/09fossil.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=world&adxnnlx=1190251306-bd0mimh3naHn6sRHLOlP/A.

"we know nothing about how the human line actually emerged from apes." Scientists quoted in "Fossil find pushes human-ape split back millions of years," (August 24, 20070), at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070824121653.65mgd37f&show_article=1.

"well humans must've just evolved really fast" University of Michigan News and Information Services News Release, "New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution" (January 10, 2000), available at http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2000/Jan00/r011000b.html.

"no australopithecine species is obviously transitional." J. Hawks, K. Hunley, L. Sang-Hee, and M. Wolpoff, "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution," Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol. 17(1): 2-22 (2000).

apes/man 99%? "the 1% figure "reflects only base substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the genomes." Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%," Science, Vol. 316:1836 (June 29, 2007).

"No theorist in evolutionary biology will ever derive chicken and insects from a winged common ancestor, and yet, clearly related sequences are specifically expressed in wing buds and imaginal disks." Wolf-Ekkehard Loennig, "Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity," in Dynamical Genetics pages. 101-119 (Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., 2004) (quoting Cohn M.J., and Tickle, C. 1996, Trends Genet. 12, 253-257).
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know how 'selection' actually works?
'They used theoretical modeling, along with two published case studies…while trait variation can influence the fate of a population, the fates of individuals are often determined by “dumb luck.”' ('We Happy Few': Robin E. Snyder, Stephen P. Ellner)

"Many practicing biologists accept that nothing in their discipline makes sense except in the light of evolution, and that natural selection is evolution’s principal sense-maker. But what natural selection actually is (a force or a statistical outcome, for example) and the levels of the biological hierarchy (genes, organisms, species, or even ecosystems) at which it operates directly are still actively disputed among philosophers and theoretical biologists." (Doolittle WF. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018. https://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/29581311)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know why everything appears designed, integrated, coherent?
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed" (Francis Crick)

"The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. The enormous usefulness of mathematics on the natural sciences is something bordering on mysterious and...there is no rational explanation for it." (Eugene Wigner, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences")

"Why the external world should obey the laws of logic, why, in fact, science should be possible, is not at all an easy question to answer." (John W.N. Sullivan, "Mathematics as an Art")

"the existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existence or how life could have existed without it." John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary, The Major Transitions in Evolution, page. 81 (W.H. Freeman, 1995).

"the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment." Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," page. 338, American Biology Teacher (September, 1971).

news flash from 2007 on human junk dna: "The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network." https://www.genome.gov/25521554/
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Do you know how many failed predictions has the theory of evolutionary origin of the species made?
insects that can hear bats' echolocation should only be after bats 'evolved'. Dr Roy E Plotnick and Dr Dena M Smith studied fossils crickets/katydids from same time as bats 'evolved' - but the tympanal ears are virtually identical to modern crickets/katydids...they already had 'em before bats. Roy E. Plotnick and Dena M. Smith, “Exceptionally Preserved Fossil Insect Ears from the Eocene Green River Formation of Colorado,” Journal of Paleontology, 86(1):19-24, 2012

"The ancestral genome devotes about 15 instructions to the essential replication code, while the remaining 85 positions are occupied by benign no-operation instructions, analogous to inert “junk DNA” that can be used as raw material for evolutionary tinkering." Gee...guess that junk DNA is necessary for something after all? Chase W Nelson and John C Sanford, “The effects of low-impact mutations in digital organisms,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, 8:9, 2011 (Available online)

3 and 9 spine sticklebacks differ...but not in the same genes as was predicted https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090604124021.htm

fruit flies artificially selected for fast development, it was expected that the population would express in the same genes...unfortunately "Notably, we observe no location in the genome where heterozygosity is reduced to anywhere near zero, and this lack of evidence for a classic sweep is a feature of the data regardless of window size." Molly K. Burke, et al., “Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila,” Nature 467:587–590, 2010. (Available online with subscription).

deleting 'junk dna' from flies resulted in increasingly defective trichomes. Joung-Woo Hong, David A. Hendrix, Michael S. Levine, “Shadow Enhancers as a Source of Evolutionary Novelty,” Science, 321:1314, 2008. Study of the flies: Nicolás Frankel, et al., “Phenotypic robustness conferred by apparently redundant transcriptional enhancers,” Nature, 466:490-493, 2010

primary cilium, turns out it serves a function - act as antennas, links to cystic kidney disease if they don't work right. Hua Jin, et. al., “The Conserved Bardet-Biedl Syndrome Proteins Assemble a Coat that Traffics Membrane Proteins to Cilia” Cell 7:1208-1219, 2010. Bradley K. Yoder, “Role of Primary Cilia in the Pathogenesis of Polycystic Kidney Disease” Frontiers in Nephrology 18:1381–1388, 2007. Veena Singla and Jeremy F. Reiter, “The Primary Cilium as the Cell’s Antenna: Signaling at a Sensory Organelle” Science 313:629-633, 2006.

Alu sequences, function found. http://www.stephencmeyer.org/news/2010/03/_this_is_part_2.html http://www.genome.gov/25521554

adipose fin in salmon, trout, many other fishes - turns out it saves energy when swimming. J. A. Buckland-Nicks, M. Gillis, and T. E. Reimchen, “Neural network detected in a presumed vestigial trait: ultrastructure of the salmonid adipose fin,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1009, 2011

lanugo on human's at 6 months thought useless, turns out it helps anchor vernix caseosa. Susan Tucker Blackbur, Maternal, fetal, & neonatal physiology: a clinical perspective (Saunders, Third Edition), 2007, p. 530.

grasses weren't around at the time of the dinosaurs, except oops! they actually were. Vandana Prasad, Caroline A. E. Strömberg, Habib Alimohammadian, and Ashok Sahni, “Dinosaur Coprolites and the Early Evolution of Grasses and Grazers,” Science 310:1177-1180, 2005. V. Prasad, C.A.E. Strömberg, A.D. Leaché, B. Samant, R. Patnaik, L. Tang, D.M. Mohabey, S. Ge, and A. Sahni, “Late Cretaceous origin of the rice tribe provides evidence for early diversification in Poaceae,” Nature Communications 2(9):480, 2011.

introns: not useless after all: A. B. Rose, “Intron-Mediated Regulation of Gene Expression,” Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 326:277-290, 2008. L Ottavio, et al., “Importance of introns in the growth regulation of mRNA levels of the proliferating cell nuclear antigen gene,” Mol Cell Biol 10:303-309, 1990. R Nowak, “Mining treasures from ‘junk DNA’,” Science 263:608-610, 1994 available online with subscription.

Qun Pan, et al., “Deep surveying of alternative splicing complexity in the human transcriptome by high-throughput sequencing,” Nature Genetics 40:1413-1415, 2008 available online with subscription. Eric T. Wang, et al., “Alternative Isoform Regulation in Human Tissue Transcriptomes,” Nature 456:470-476, 2009 available online with subscription.

pseudogenes, not useless after all. Laura Poliseno, Leonardo Salmena, Jiangwen Zhang, Brett Carver, William J. Haveman, and Pier Paolo Pandolfi, Ibid, p. 1035 full article available online
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Can you explain why 'earth suddenly became more muddy'?
“Exactly how ancient plants, rooted or not, helped increase Earth’s muddiness is still uncertain...Earth had mud before it had plants: Weathering of rocks can create silt and clay...something...to do with...floodplain deposits...” (https://www.sciencenews.org/article/early-land-plants-led-rise-mud)

"Archaeological evidence suggests that a great flood, one reminiscent of the Noah’s Ark story, occurred 5.33 million years ago, filling up the mostly dry Mediterranean Sea in only a few years." (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19446-3 via http://www.newsweek.com/ancient-megaflood-filled-mediterranean-sea-just-few-years-862101)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Can you explain where morals come from materialistically?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2163313-young-babies-disapprove-when-they-see-adults-acting-immorally
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Can you explain how someone can accurately observe and recall corroborated events while dead?
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/researchers-say-theres-evidence-that-consciousness-continues-after-clinical-death/
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Is it rational to reject evidence before investigation?
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (Todd, Scott C., "A view from Kansas on that evolution debate," Nature, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Can you even come up with a rational, evidentiary objection to the Biblical God?
“Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God [who is all-powerful and all-good]. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed… there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God” (William Rowe)
No!
=========================================================================================================================
Does absolute truth exist? No? Then are you absolutely sure there’s no God?
=========================================================================================================================
Consider an empty universe. Are there morals? Later, humans show up. Morality seems to appear also...is it eternal, or does it have a cause? If we say "because humans, morality", it begs the question.
=========================================================================================================================
"I disbelieve anything supernatural." Tell me: which natural law caused Logic? None? Is it not then, by definition, supernatural? Have you contradicted yourself?
=========================================================================================================================
If transcription of fossils were necessarily blind chance, do you reject the transcriptions of men, which can see? As both undergo selection: if fossils are evidence, history moreso.
=========================================================================================================================
I take material from 2 different sources, process, out pop 2 99% similar objects. You look at them and say "99% similar; same source"; adding more complexity can't make you right.
=========================================================================================================================
I take 2 papers created at the same time, stack them, you say "the lower was created earlier"; adding more complexity can't make you right.
=========================================================================================================================
Chance: the unknown area betwixt assumption A and observable evidence B; if the engine of evolution is 'chance', how does that qualify as an explanation?
=========================================================================================================================
1. subjective experience is relevant in the explanation of behavior or it is not.
2. If relevant, materialism is absurd (more than that, it is unambiguously false).
3. If not relevant, materialism is absurd.
4. materialism is absurd.
(https://strangenotions.com/the-single-best-argument-against-philosophical-materialism/)
=========================================================================================================================
Supposing a multiverse actually agrees with the Biblical description of reality...did you know that?
=========================================================================================================================
The morals which seem to be good candidates for being universal... are rather remarkably the same as the Bible's.
=========================================================================================================================
Matter, Energy, and the speed of Light are mathematically related...why Light? Did it ever seem curious to you, dear person, that an attribute of Light would ‘bind up’ the Universe?
=========================================================================================================================
Is the universe a closed system? Y) a perpetual motion machine? N) What's past the edge? Is it adding energy to the universe? ...did you know the Bible tells us heaven/earth will pass away, God is in the heaven of heavens, and the universe is sustained by God?
=========================================================================================================================
In trying to logically object to the Biblical God, one either approximates Him by other names, or denies evident reality.
=========================================================================================================================
Why are marine fossils everywhere- in practically every strata, on every continent?
=========================================================================================================================
How were comparable megasequences formed on every continent?
=========================================================================================================================
How are the Cambrian and Ediacaran 'explosions' of already-complex forms so close to each other in the fossil record?
=========================================================================================================================
How much of those transitional forms are artist rendition/CGI, and how much is actual fossil?
=========================================================================================================================
There's more living fossils than transitional forms...why?
=========================================================================================================================
Why are fossil trackways found so long before the animals that made them first show up in the fossil record?
=========================================================================================================================
I care about you fellow human, I wouldn't be subjecting myself to insult and ridicule if I didn't. If you've made it here and realized your worldview is lacking, I want you to lay down your presuppositions and investigate the truth-claims of the Bible and the corroborating evidence that supports them. Seek the Truth, follow the evidence- because it's everywhere you look.
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”  (Romans 1:20, KJV)