Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

Status
Not open for further replies.

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
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.
It could be theoretically disproven, anything can I could theoretically disprove the earth revolves around the sun. It wouldn't actually disprove it.
 

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME 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.

So what is stated in the following quote is wrong?

* 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"
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?
 

Jukia

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.

While not quite a disproof of evolution---find me a mammal fossil in the Cambrian. Not only would that put a big crimp in evolutionary theory it would for the most part blow much of current scientific theory out of the water.
Would seem to be another fertile area for creation scientists (sorry just too lazy to put it in quotes) to do research and be a home run if they found one.
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
So what is stated in the following quote is wrong?
Dr Bowers has also been quoted as saying the chrysalis is "just almost a bag of fluid" so go figure, the facts and research bear out that the catapillar has the beginning of wings forming under it's skin.

Rich Fluid Media does not mean "Liquid" it means a rich fluid media otherwise being a scientist he would have said... liquid.

It would be accurate to say a human is moslty liquid as we are 70% water.
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?
Creationists often datamine real scientists as it's where real work is done. They have no shame regarding who they will temporarily side with, like a dirty little asteroid basking in the reflected glory of the sun it orbits, hoping somehow it's magnificence will rub off on them if only for long enough to make them glow to the observer.
 

Jukia

New member
Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?

Creationists are just so used to quote mining they cannot help themselves!!!

Would it not be more intellectually honest for Pastor Bob to contact Dr. Brower and bring his questions up with him, at least get Brower's take. God forbid we should try to confuse people with the facts. So much easier to be incredulous and then say "Goddidit".
 

SUTG

New 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.)

The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.
 

SUTG

New member
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?

Let me guess; you've never taken a Biology class, right? :chuckle:
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
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.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.

That is the most pathetic explanation ever put forth. Evolution in a general sense refers to a change in population. How does a change in a population (i.e. beak sizes in finches) explain the process of metamorphasis?

Just saying the word "evolution" doesn't make it so.
 

Evoken

New member
Does anyone else notice the irony in Enyart appealing to an evolutionist like Brower?

Hmm...not really. That Enyart believes Brower is wrong about evolution does not mean that he thinks he is wrong about everything he says.


Evo
 

SUTG

New member
Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.

Boy, you don't ask for much, do you? How detailled of an explanation do you want? Is down to the atomic level enough, or should we include the trajectories of all of the elemetary particles as well?

Really, though, this is just another example of the irreducible complexity argument, which is obsolete. Why this argument is obsolete is left as an exercise for the reader.:execute:
 

Toast

New member
Yes, but not by any of the Christians in this thread.

That is your homework for tomorrow. (HINT: See a basic Biology text)

LOL, it's good to see you have such a stronghold on the truth.

Okay, well, I'm glad some of you can admit that it is disproveable. My only reason for getting in this thread is that Doogie claimed that we argued from incredulity. But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy. Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view, but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening. Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

So seriously guys, enough of that silliness. Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.
One answer [talkorigins]

Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?
 

SUTG

New member
But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy.

The only people who ever bring this up anymore are creationists who do not understand evolution or entropy. The argument is just plain silly. Go research it online or read up on entropy. If you still think there is an argument left, come back and tell us about it.

Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view...

It has been considered and rejected long ago. Just like astronomers won't be bothered with astrology or the idea that the sky is a big dome covering the Earth, biologists don't really bother with creationism much anymore.


but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening.

:nono: :nono: :nono:

Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

Yes they do. Most scientist and engineers are aware of this. Would you like some examples?

Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..

OK. Since I am presumably one of the main culprits, I'll do my best. :chuckle: :cheers:

It is just that there are so many YECs here, and elsewhere, that pretend to have genuine scientific concerns with the theory of evolution, who turn out to be frauds. Their real objection is on religious grounds. They have no scientific background or understanding of basic biology, but they pretend to have arised at their position by sincere scientific inquiry.
 

Ktoyou

New member
Hall of Fame
One answer [talkorigins]

Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.


So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?

This is interesting, not being an entomologist, I cannot say more than grasshoppers or locusts are good to eat. A little trail mix and a few dozen of these makes for a good days out meal. It helps keep you out all day without carrying a pack.
 

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Okay, well, I'm glad some of you can admit that it is disproveable. My only reason for getting in this thread is that Doogie claimed that we argued from incredulity. But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy. Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view, but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening. Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..

So seriously guys, enough of that silliness. Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..
Look all your arguments are shallow and here's why.

The earth is not a closed system, thermodynamics rule number 2 need not apply.

also the longest strand with the most information of DNA is in the Ameoba. Hey go figure. Perhaps new info hasn't been added, just changed and shrunk.

Thats right a single Human DNA strand has less information than that of the oldest known life the single celled organism. We are less complex at the celular level than an ameoba thats entropy for you. We are more organised, but hey a JPG has less information than a BMP... it's just more organised.

So burn your straw men now stop trying to defend the already long refuted and learn something about your world.

You can use a computer, you can type, you can't be completely retarded by religion.
 

Jukia

New member
But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy.

Don't even bother. That issue has been beaten to death. Go learn some chemistry and biology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top