Creationists Turn

I have been with this website a couple of days now and several others over the course of this year and it is time that creationism be held to the same level of accountability that is expected of evolution. WE have given example after example from many different disciplines and the only response that seems to be consistent is denial by creationists.Now I will turn the tables. Present a clear and consistent picture of how creationism is backed by the evidence with this caveat Do not use the bible as source for evidence only the world around you . If possible give sources of research being conducted and be sure that they follow proper protocols for peer review.Evidence may not be anecdotal and you must be able to answer challenges to your presentation without contradicting yourself. I await answers and I do hope that I do not sound angry as I am not.

In which topic shall we start? You could choose one of the forums for one. Or we could start out with simple logic.Take the bombardier beetle. Here's a scientific, secular reference: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bull's-eye beetle. Notice how the two types of chemicals involved in the reaction need to be kept in different compartments. If for some reason or other a pre-bombardier beetle evolved one chemical, the gun wouldn't work (and bring adverse effects upon the beetle.) If both chemicals evolved at the same time, kabam! Roasted coleoptera. You need both chemicals, separate chambers to keep them apart, the firing mechanism, the flexible abdomen (so spray can be directed even at parts of its own body held by a predator) and deflectors for aiming. Plus whatever means it uses to prevent harm when it sprays itself with the boiling liquid - something we don't comprehend yet. Unless all these things are in the correct places, fully functioning (not partially evolved parts) and put together in a precise manner, the beetle will either go bang or remain weaponless. Remember, the beetle needs this gun because it can't launch quickly into flight. Without the gun, it would probably become extinct very fast.

Not even close my man. The two chemicals Hydrgen peroxide and hydroquinone in the bombadier beetle would slowly oxidize when mixed together unless they are first introduced to a catalyst which the beetle controls. This is getting off the point of my challenge. How would creationism explain the mechanism of the bombadier beetle.Where is the research being done by independent creation scientists to show the physical procedure to explain how this world works. I do not want to see an arguement that chases supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory I want you to think how your world view can.

Uh, that changes nothing. Without the catalyst, the gun doesn't work. With the catalyst, bang goes the beetle, unless everything (including working separate compartments etc.) is perfectly in place and functioning - not partially evolved - in the first place. Which indicates, just like a man-made gun, that it was designed and built before being put into action.
But if you'd rather discuss creationism than the dubious ability of random mutation to form this delicate mechanism, I have no idea why intelligent design is a problem. We believe in an omnipotent God. Only such a One could design a living, complex creature like the bombardier beetle, which, as I said in post 2, we humans still don't fully understand. God, with His infinite intelligence, designed the beetle. Since He foreknew the beginning of sin, He would have been able to include latent genetic information for activation after the Fall. Or perhaps He added the mechanism afterwards. With his infinite power, He could create this predesigned animal and then modify it with a defence mechanism for protection in a sinful world - just like you'd modify your car with snow tyres if you moved to Greenland.
Pygidial Gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp. | Answers in Genesis
Pygidial Gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp. | Answers in Genesis Or, for more information about defence mechanisms, try Why Does God’s Creation Include Death and Suffering? | Answers in Genesis .{Put a space between the first two URL's, so that they wouldn't be one long line. This restored page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-31-2003]

The hydrogen peroxide is a by-product of metabolism in insects.quinones are used to harden the cuticle itself. Stink bugs use it to make themselves distasteful to predators.Since these chemicals are excreted by these insects they already taste bad even before the evolution of the bombadier beetle.The bombadier beetle would not have to be accurate initially in evolutionary development to acquire an advantage against predators.So now we have an infinite God with infinite intelligence and that is also omnipotent.You agaain fail to think.What is the evidence you present for an Omnipotent infinitely intelligent God? You present no evidence, you fall back upon a rebuttal that has no teeth and you do not even understand how you contradict yourself with the idea of "intelligent design"Please do some real work here because while it is easy to criticise the work of others it is a whole other level of intelligence to do your own.Remember they only tackle the one who has the ball.
Now the concept of "intelligent design"claims that natural laws and chance alone are not adequate to explain all natural phenomena. So you postulate design but you do not I repeat do not offer an explanation of the mechanism by which this is design operates. Again you fall back upon biblical concepts instead of actually having to explain on your own.
Let us see if I can get some gray matter working. Take the moon and sun in their daily movements.At certain times the moon will be up in the sky at the same time as the sun but will be only partially lit while the rest is in shadow.Since the sun is the source of the moons' light how can this be?

I think what sideliner is trying to get at is that you can't infer design without a known designer, and you can't infer a designer from design. You have to have independant evidence for a designer before you can infer design.After all, intelligent design doesn't imply the Christian god. It could be some of the Hindu ones, or Allah, or the gods of Zoroastrianism. Or not even gods at all - space aliens, or something. Or humans from the future who went back in time to start life (and setting up one hell of a paradox.)And for that matter, if you're going to talk about intelligent design, you'll have to be prepared to defend against obvious examples of unintelligent design.

Thread moved here from the Welcome, Visitors! forum.

We must also wonder since the position of the creationists is that a design implies a designer because of the complexity present.By THAT SAME LOGIC God being infinite and omnipotent must be mind-bogglingly complex.Who or what designed God? Of course God just is as the creationists say and does not have a designer. What tripe! They plead special case for the introduction of intelligent design and then they back pedal when faced with having to think how to explain their model.They state that he is beyond space and time and one can only wonder at the evidence they have for that.They hang on the coattails of actual science yet do none of their own research from scratch.Since they think that evolution is a belief system then for crying out loud why not dump all knowledge built around the concept and try to put together a working system that uses creationism as a working model and be done with it? This means having to start from scratch and explain the workings of biology and medicine, geology,etc. without the model that allowed the dicoveries we now employ to predict new areas of research. Surely God will show you the way (ask and ye shall recieve).It strikes me as a hired hand who, on an expedition to an unexplored region following a courageous man who confidently overcomes hardships and trials to blaze a new trail into unknown areas, follows behind but states that the man he is following is a fool and that he would be far better suited to the job.
Walk the walk boys. I am tired of the banter.

Hi,I have to agree.All I see creation 'scientists' doing is 'trying'to disprove evolution.They seem to think that if evolution has a problem then creation is the default for all life on earth. What I would like to see is some of these 'scientists' coming up with explanations for [b]their

Um. Nice avatar, Brian.

quote:

---

I have no idea why intelligent design is a problem. We believe in an omnipotent God. Only such a One could design a living, complex creature like the bombardier beetle, which, as I said in post 2, we humans still don't fully understand. God, with His infinite intelligence, designed the beetle. Since He foreknew the beginning of sin, He would have been able to include latent genetic information for activation after the Fall. Or perhaps He added the mechanism afterwards. With his infinite power, He could create this predesigned animal and then modify it with a defence mechanism for protection in a sinful world - just like you'd modify your car with snow tyres if you moved to Greenland.

---

1. What exactly is the testable hypothesis here?
2. How is your hypothesis of an omnipotent god falsifiable?
3. What is the evidence that could be gathered to support the hypothesis if there is one?
4. How is the hypothesis better at explaining both naturally observed and laboratory data than other competing hypotheses?

I'm brand new to this site and am a Christian who until recently accepted,without question, evolution as the mechanism that God used to create all the life forms including humans on this earth. Now, on this site and others I'm hearing rational objections to the established dogma of evolution. In the above thread, those of you who support evolution did not appear to respond to the very logical observation that the bombadier beetle could not have evolved as required by the principles of evolution. Please respond to that issue. I would like to, earnestly and with openness, evaluate your answer. Thank you.

larwils,I'm sure others will deal more with what is actually known, rather than just speculated, so I'd like to tackle the argument from another perspective, if I may.This is the classic argument based on irreducible complexity, several components work together in such a way that the elimination of one, causes the whole to cease function. The mammalian inner ear bones are just such an example, remove either of the malleus, incus, & stapes, & the functional unit of inner ear bones will not function. Creationists would claim such a thing impossible to evolve, because all three components need to be in place for function to occur. However, both phylogenetic & cladistic evidence (evolutionary trees derived from morphological characters & molecular sequence data, DNA & protein) point to the evolution of mammals from a retile ancestor. Reptiles have a stapes, but no malleus & incus. The fossil record shows a gradual reduction of lower jawbones in the reptile-mammal transition series until only the dentary remains, the two bones were co-opted into the mammalian inner ear. Embryology shows mammalian inner ears have two components that begin at the lower jaw, & migrate to the inner ear during development.Clearly, the origin of the mammalian, irreducibly complex, inner ear isn't in serious doubt. Yet imagine if we have none of the above lines of evidence. Would you be sitting at your keyboard now telling us how the mammalian inner ear is impossible for evolution to evolve? The point being, you aren't privy to the anatomy of the bombardier beetles ancestors, you are in no position, because you possess no data to the contrary, to assert that the bombardier beetles squirty thang couldn't evolve. As such, the entire irreducible complexity argument is flawed on logical grounds: Argument from Ignorance. Because the evolution of IC structures hasn't been proven, it must be false.It would be nice to have a "flick book" of the bombardier beetles evolution, but simply because we lack such a thing doesn't mean various IC structures never evolved. It is a lack of information you are basing your argument, not a wealth of it.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-01-2003]

So now God PLANS for the Fall?He "builds in" the mechanism for sin?He "activates" the mechanism of sin?In other words: Isn't that what you are really saying?------------------
http://www.sun-day-school.us

Mark - Thanks for your reply. I would like to pursue your arguments for the evolution of complex biological systems. Where would I read more about other developments that are found in the fossil record and the documentation of these developments? Thanks. Larry