|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists Turn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6140 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
larwils writes: 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. First of all there was no logical observation made along the lines you described. When sidelined challenged creation scientists to present actual scientific study done by creation scientists to support their claims. In response, a creationist did not stick to the thread and instead presented a nature article on the bombardier beetle. Neither the article, nor the writer applied logic toward the end of knocking evolution, or of supporting creationism (which are two separate topics). That is unless you consider using logical fallacies, as applying logic. The article described a highly interesting natural phenomenon, which raises many questions. Included within this list of questions (though not even touched on in the article) is most certainly the viable pathways which may have lead to its development. The writer then made inaccurate comments about the chemicals found in the described phenomenon, as well as how the physical portions had to have developed as a whole or it would have been worthless. The writer did not even build upon these assertions to make a case proving creation, leaving only an implied argument that if it couldn't have been evolution it must be creation. Sidelined corrected the writer's incorrect assertions about the chemicals involved in the phenomenon. In fact, if the writer had read the article he himself had quoted, he would have found it said the chemicals used are common biological irritants. This alone leaves the writer's argument in the dust. The only questions left on development are under what conditions would it naturally have developed storage tanks for these chemicals (this is pretty easy to imagine), how it gained the ability to mix them properly with the necessary catalyst to create the blast, and finally how it "learned" to aim this weapon. It is totally correct to say that evolutionary theorists have not come up with answers to this. That does not mean that answers along evolutionary lines are impossible to come by. Many scenarios may be advanced. Only they aren't worth much without further evidence. Clearly the bombardier beetle, as a natural phenomenon, is worth a lot more research time. If you want me to advance scenarios of its development I will, but it is an exercise in thumbtwiddling as long as I am not in possession of such beetles and their possible precursors. It would also be contrary to the point of this thread which is for creationists to do more than twiddle their thumbs in place of advancing serious scientific inquiry in support of their claims. I will leave this discussion with a parallel issue which should explain why lack of current scientific explanation does not itself mean a spiritual one is left as the only one. In the quoted article, the authors present a very real question which science has yet to explain. How does the bombardier beetle protect itself from all the intense heat generated by its chemical weapon? This could be at the point of mixing or when the spray lands on itself. This, much like what the path of development could have been, remains unanswered. Are we then to rush to a conclusion that it is the miraculous hand of god which protects the beetle every time it uses its weapon against evil-doers of the animal kingdom? No, given the weight of accumulated scientific evidence that natural phenomenon have natural explanations we are safe in presuming that it is worth investigating what natural mechanisms the beetle uses to protect itself. Likewise, and hopefully, some scientist at some point will get on the ball and investigate possible evolutionary pathways for this beetle's awesome defense mechanism. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4758 From: u.k Joined: |
''By THAT SAME LOGIC God being infinite and omnipotent must be mind-bogglingly complex.Who or what designed God?'
But does life on earth live forever? No, it ages and dies. God has the unique name, Yahweh. He has never NOT existed, if he was designed that would mean he must have 'not existed',but remember he has always been here, that means there was no 'beforetime' when he could have been designed as he has simply always been around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote: Then as a christian how do you explain original sin? ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
How about the fact that two co-orbiting masses are almost impossible to form through random processes?
------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1787 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How about the fact that two co-orbiting masses are almost impossible to form through random processes? Says who? That's not a "fact" as far as I've heard. Cite your source, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
larwils,
"Mammalian ear sequence" "Figure 1.4.3. A comparison of the jawbones and ear-bones of several transitional forms in the evolution of mammals. Approximate stratigraphic ranges of the various taxa are indicated at the far left (more recent on top). The left column of jawbones shows the view of the left jawbone from the inside of the mouth. The right column is the view of the right jawbone from the right side (outside of the skull). As in Figure 1.4.1, the quadrate (mammalian anvil or incus) is in turquoise, the articular (mammalian hammer or malleus) is in yellow, and the angular (mammalian tympanic annulus) is in pink. For clarity, the teeth are not shown, and the squamosal upper jawbone is omitted (it replaces the quadrate in the mammalian jaw joint, and forms part of the jaw joint in advanced cynodonts and Morganucodon). Q = quadrate, Ar = articular, An = angular, I = incus (anvil), Ma = malleus (hammer), Ty = tympanic annulus, D = dentary. (Reproduced from Kardong 2002, pp. 274, with permission from the publisher, Copyright 2002 McGraw-Hill)" Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 09-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
quote:Uh, think about it. ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
messenJah,
I've thought about it, & it's an unsupported assertion, not even close to a fact. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1560 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Ok, ok I knew this was going to happen. Well for links you could find some info on answersingenesis.org
Well basically this is how I would explain this. Well first you need your background on the beginning of the universe the Big Bang: quote:- big bang site Now, so this explosion happened. What is the likelyhood that two co-orbiting masses could be formed through that explosion, or many of them in fact. That gravity stopped them into an orbit? It is nearly impossible to happen. What would be an explanation for binary objects? The fact that there are binary objects points to intelligent design does it not? ------------------"I AM THE MESSENJAH" holla at me for any reason at: messenjahjr@yahoo.com [This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-01-2003] [This message has been edited by messenjaH, 09-01-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 5280 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Can I ask you something MJah?
Is answersingenesis website your sole source of information? You do know that the wider your reading list the better you will understand a topic? Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1787 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What is the likelyhood that two co-orbiting masses could be formed through that explosion, or many of them in fact. What are the odds? 1/1, I'd say. You have this idea that it's hard to put two things in orbit. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gravity is universal, all objects are attracted to all other objects. Any two objects with sufficient velocity will fall into orbit around each other. It would be astronomically unlikely to never see two objects in orbit of each other. Maybe you'd like to think a little harder about probability before you try to prove the existence of god with it. And before you tell people "to think about it", before you've done any thinking yourself.
The fact that there are binary objects points to intelligent design does it not? Nope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5516 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
messenjaH,
Now, so this explosion happened. What is the likelyhood that two co-orbiting masses could be formed through that explosion, or many of them in fact. You are misunderstanding how stellar sytems form. They form from a coagulation of dust, atoms, & molecules. As the body contracts under it's own gravitational pull it begins to spin, as it begins to spin it begins tom flatten. Most of the mass gets attracted to the center of the cloud, but there are swirls & "lumpy" bits outside, spinning around the proto star. Gradually they condense into planets, the remaning gas gets swept up by the larger bodies. So, in answer to your question, the planets orbit the sun because they formed in the same event, not because loads of "pool balls" happened by each other in space. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Two co-orbiting masses are not formed through random process but through gravitational interaction and the complexity is not simply concerning their orbital characterisics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
larwils I responded in Post #3 and #5 and if neccesary I will go into greater detail.However,the original purpose of this post is not to do the same old thing with creationists pulling up one thing after another in looking for apparent holes in evolution but to have creationists to finally implement creation science based upon your worldview.
And to mike the wiz in #17 You cannot hold to to the idea that coming upon a watch in the forest must necessitate an intelligence and then state that a far more complex God does not adhere to that same logic.What is your evidence for the statement that god has always been?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 6229 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I am going to reinstate a question from earlier so that I may give creationists a chance to "stretch" their brains.
Take the moon and the sun in their daily movements.You notice one day that the moon is up in the daytime sky along with the sun but is only partially lit while the rest is in shadow.Since the sun is the source of the moons' light how do we explain this? As a somewhat more difficult execise can anyone explain why there are two tides a day on earth?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025