Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

This is the show from Friday March 28th, 2008.

SUMMARY:

* Challenge to Atheists: RSF co-hosts Fred Williams, with Creation Research Society, and Bob Enyart, challenge atheists to give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly. Evolution uses random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection. The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross. A caterpillar species needs to begin digesting itself, turning itself into a "bag of rich fluid," and then forming all new tissue and organs, including wings, legs, antennae, heart, muscles and nervous system, building a brand new organism, and then starting the process all over again. So, Bob and Fred invite any atheist to spend the next 25 years trying to come up with a rough algorithm of how Darwinism can cross the Chrysalis divide!

* Evolutionist Criticizes Bob: Go figure. The last time Bob described the caterpillar liquefying itself and then re-forming itself, a feat impossible for Darwinism to accomplish, an online evolutionist criticized him saying that caterpillars "do not liquefy themselves." However, the world's leading expert on Monarch Butterflies, Dr. Lincoln Brower, whose scientific papers published over 50 years take 15 pages just to list, writes, "Enzymes are being released that digest all the caterpillar tissue, so that the caterpillar is being converted into a rich culture medium... that chrysalis, during the first 3-4 days is literally a bag of rich fluid media that these cells are growing on. ...it truly is a miraculous biological process of transformation"

* Carbon 14 Found in Deep Well Gas: Carbon 14 decays in only thousands of years, and therefore, cannot last for millions of years. Thus, young-earth creationists find evidence that the earth is not billions of years old as Christian and secular scientists find Carbon 14 EVERYWHERE it shouldn't be if the earth were old, including in diamonds, coal, oil, dinosaur fossils, amber! Creation Research Society Quarterly author John Doughty reports now on radiocarbon found in two-mile deep natural gas wells! Doughy concludes, "Once again, fossil gas is not carbon-14 dead. Thus, the age of the gases is on the order of thousands, not millions of years.

Post-show Note: Please join Bob, Tom & Madelyn in welcoming Judie Brown to Colorado at evening $100-a-plate fundraisers on April 4 & 5, or help get signatures, or you can donate directly to the non-deductible Colorado RTL Issue Committee to help get Personhood on the ballot in November! Just call Donna at 303 753-9394! Our deadline for 76,000 signatures is May 13th! We're at 45,000 and going strong! We need your help! Please, help

Today's Resource: Bob Enyart Live will sign you up for a subscription to Creation Magazine as a thank you if you order the BEL Science Pack or Donate $100 or more to BEL! We're at $18,000 of our vital $25,000 goal. You can help also by subscribing to our Monthly Sermons resource! Every month, you'll get Bob's sermons delivered to your door in the U.S. Mail. Also, you can consider subscribing to our BEL Televised Classics on DVD (to see the educational and often hilarious, and sometimes intense, episodes from Bob's nationally syndicated TV show). And you can subscribe to our monthly Bible Study Albums, or our monthly topical Videos! These subscriptions will help you grow spiritually and intellectually! So many have reported that the biblical knowledge they gain from these resources is so practical that it has helped them improve: their marriages and other relationships, parenting and grand-parenting, work relationships, evangelizing, and so many general life skills! And of course, subscribing to one or more of these services will not only help you, at the same time you will be helping KGOV continue to reach more people with our biblically-based worldview!
 

SUTG

New member
challenge atheists to give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly.

This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:

Evolution uses random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.

This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.
 

Toast

New member
This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:

This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.

I really don't think liquifying oneself is generally a great way to perpuate the species. =)

Natural selection is going to choose the path of least resistance, where this liquification process would seem to be rather hard to recover from by chance..
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
This challenge is answered by the next line in Jefferson's post:



This type of ignorance has been refuted long ago. Enyart just didn't get the memo.

What about:

The chrysalis stage is an impassible gulf that small random changes cannot cross...
 

SUTG

New member
I really don't think liquifying oneself is generally a great way to perpuate the species. =)

It isn't. Caterpillars don't liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species.

Natural selection is going to choose the path of least resistance, where this liquification process would seem to be rather hard to recover from by chance..

Huh? What do you mean by "recover from by chance"?
 

Turbo

Friendly Neighborhood Admin
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What about it? It needs to be shown, not asserted.
Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)
 

nicholsmom

New member
It isn't. Caterpillars don't liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species.

Caterpillars cannot reproduce/perpetuate the species at all until they've liquidated themselves in order to become butterflies. So Caterpillars do liquidate themselves in order to perpetuate the species - why else?
Huh? What do you mean by "recover from by chance"?
This type of leap would require caterpillars to have first been able to reproduce without metamorphosis. Then suddenly a massive number of caterpillars made an identical "random mutation" or a "small incremental change" (yowza - not really a small change there) so that no possibility of "natural selection" could ensue until mass liquidation of the population would produce a swarm of reproducing butterflies. What random mutation would alter a caterpillar to make it incapable of reproducing until it had liquidated itself & transformed into a butterfly? Sounds like utter failure to me. What small incremental change could accomplish this task in sufficient quantity to produce enough butterflies to reproduce at all? What natural selection would even be possible to create such a reproductive cycle?
 

Jukia

New member
Standard Pastor Bob argument from personal incredulity. In addition he still has not seemed to learn that evolutionary theory is not a synonym for atheism.

But it certainly seems like a fertile area for creation "scientists" to do some--oh you know--research. However, my guess is that the whole issue of metamorphosis, both complete and incomplete, is complicated. It is sooooo much easier to say "How could this be? I don't understand it. So God must have done it this way."
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Standard Pastor Bob argument from personal incredulity.

But it certainly seems like a fertile area for creation "scientists" to do some--oh you know--research. But that is another "don't hold your breath" issue.

Perfectly put. The dazzling spectacle of nature is fascinating and worthy of study.

An argument from incredulity is revealing in this case because setting aside the evolution of a lowly caterpillar, it's astonishing to ponder what Enyart and others actually believe without any incredulity whatsoever.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
Wow purely and simply retarded, held back, stopped dead in your intellectualy tracts. Dumb creationists once said "it truly is a miraculous biological process" of the bombadier beetle, that was quickly refuted and blown out of the water, and some of thes eunderevolved monkeys ares still grinding that one through the mill.

The creationsits motto seems to be "Always refuted never Retracted" Just get your ideas out there and hope the peons and the great unwashed take it as truth and ask no more questions.

And as it happens there are explanations for the evolution of the butterfly with the catapillar being a form of zygote/embryonic version. An advanced and more beautiful "Fly" which starts life as a maggot chyrsalises and is reborn a fly.

Much the same way dolphins grow limbs ebyonically then reduce. The creationists say a baby is a baby from conception so a Cattapillar is a Butterfly. It's just not grown yet but does it have any less rights.... sorry I'm going off down the insane lane lucky I have fundy company though eh...

It makes sense that you can be born early and in great multitude, then eat the the plants instead of needing the energy stored in an egg, then transform into your mating form afterwards.

But the point of the my post is this.

How is mankind ever going progress when all it takes is a few thoughtless unintelligent sheep to simply cry "God did it?" and sit back resting on your genesis.

If you don't know how it came about and you really want to find out try studying it instead of relying on your non existant guy in the sky. To keep you happy knowing nothing.

You are decended from people who thought the earth flat because of your old book of jewish stories, good job you evolved from that one eh? or you'd have no credibility instead of the very very little credibility you currently enjoy.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Go for it. Show, rather than assert.


"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain (it cannot) a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly."

(Hint: Merely throwing out evolutionist buzzwords like "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection" does not suffice as even a rough description.)

Give a rough description? Exactly Turbo, all we are going to see hear is more evolutionist rhetoric and creationist bashing.
 

chatmaggot

New member
Hall of Fame
Wow purely and simply retarded, held back, stopped dead in your intellectualy tracts. Dumb creationists once said "it truly is a miraculous biological process" of the bombadier beetle, that was quickly refuted and blown out of the water, and some of thes eunderevolved monkeys ares still grinding that one through the mill.

The creationsits motto seems to be "Always refuted never Retracted" Just get your ideas out there and hope the peons and the great unwashed take it as truth and ask no more questions.

And as it happens there are explanations for the evolution of the butterfly with the catapillar being a form of zygote/embryonic version. An advanced and more beautiful "Fly" which starts life as a maggot chyrsalises and is reborn a fly.

Much the same way dolphins grow limbs ebyonically then reduce. The creationists say a baby is a baby from conception so a Cattapillar is a Butterfly. It's just not grown yet but does it have any less rights.... sorry I'm going off down the insane lane lucky I have fundy company though eh...

It makes sense that you can be born early and in great multitude, then eat the the plants instead of needing the energy stored in an egg, then transform into your mating form afterwards.

But the point of the my post is this.

How is mankind ever going progress when all it takes is a few thoughtless unintelligent sheep to simply cry "God did it?" and sit back resting on your genesis.

If you don't know how it came about and you really want to find out try studying it instead of relying on your non existant guy in the sky. To keep you happy knowing nothing.

You are decended from people who thought the earth flat because of your old book of jewish stories, good job you evolved from that one eh? or you'd have no credibility instead of the very very little credibility you currently enjoy.

This is silly. No one has ever explained how incremental random mutations developed in a beetle that never had the ability to then have the ability of a bombadier beetle.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
The explanations are out there do something no creationist does and actually look for them yourself instead of compounding someone else personal incredulity by simply agreeing with it, don't you see that this whole thing shows the fundamental difference between creation "Scientists" and real Scientists, you know the sort that designed the PC you're sat at.

When the average creationist sees a complex and seemingly impossible to explain natural phenomenon they just cry "GodDidIt", saying it's impossible to find a natural explanation... FOR THEM limited in intelligence as they usually are.

When a scientist sees the same thing they throw thier hands in the air and give up. It's merely a problem and if it's in thier field of endeavour they set about working on it.

The solution could take many years, but just consider the evolution of a metamorphosis process is not really even close to as impossible as you might think.

The process would not have to randomly, accidentally jump together immediately the way YEC nutters misstate the problem. It would develop by a step-by-step process. It is possible to theorise a possible scenario of incremental development, to test against the data that is found, you know that word ? test rather than look up in Genesis. You'd be surprised how much information is NOT in Genesis.. like 99.999999999999999999999% of the information we use on a day to day basis to live our lives.

You see some insects like cockroaches (ancient insects by fossil standards) hatch as a small version of their adult selves and just grow larger.

Other insects that appear later in the fossil record go through a life metamorphosis , consisting of egg, nymph , adult.

At some point in the record some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. This could evolutioniary be usefull... what do I mean could !! WAS you see ther oaches stayed on in their way, having no pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle, or they wouldn't be here.

So at some point over incremental steps, from simply wrapping a leaf around itself to actually creating the whole cocoon a nymph developed the behaviour to form these cocoons around themselves before maturation to the adult. This enabled it to survive say a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise.

The problem of how the Metamorphosis cycle of a Butterfly is not solved. But is it impossible? don't think so. Its just a problem that scientists, using the scientific method and not leaping to proclaim"GodDidIt", are probably working on solving.

And this ridiculous argument will go down in history like the tale of the bombadier beetle as just another dumb idea those creationists had... that didn't quite pan out.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
This is silly. No one has ever explained how incremental random mutations developed in a beetle that never had the ability to then have the ability of a bombadier beetle.
The incremental steps of evolution that explain how a beetle like the bombadier could exist have been explained, go back to school and stay off those AiG sites, even they are backing away from that one.

Starting with the fact that the chemicals it produces aren't even close to the explosive power the creationists thought. My word you don't have to be dumb to be a creationist but it sure does help you swallow it.

Remember the creationist mantra

"Often refuted, never retracted" and perhaps you'll look for your own answers.
 

DoogieTalons

New member
And this complete liquification nonsense, monarch catapillars have the beginnings of the wings actually forming underneath the caterpillar's skin before its last molt.
 

Toast

New member
Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Our argument is not one from incredulity.

I have a couple of questions to the evolutionists in this thread, doogie or whomever..

Could evolution be theoretically disproven? If so, how?

Just interested in seeing how much your bias prevents you from seeing the truth.

How kind of you. With an attitude like yours, why bother asking questions?

And yes, this is an argument drawn from an inability to imagine something being possible. It's an old intellectual fallacy, and it happens all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top