wow this is like 2 religon duking it out. I know that creationist use faith and fact to explain their point of view. I see that evolution is a religon too, becuse they use a lot of faith in what they cannot see. the religon of evolution... very interesting
Anyone who says this isint irreducibly complex are doing nothing more than telling fairytales until is can be shown in lab, otherwise, its mere fairytales.
The irreducible complexity arguemnt is NOT dead, by any stretch, and if anyone would like to tell me how it is, Im all ears.
-Ah so your proof is.............because you say so. Interesting.
-I dont propose ID, I propose that evolution cant explain many things in the natural world and thus should not be applied to them. Saying a blind process is responsible for thhe abilities of this beetle, is telling fairytales until it can be proven.
Im not saying this is Ireducibly complex in the traditional sense, Im saying its complexity cannot bbe attributed to blind chance and called science. Full Stop.
In other words, you have to believe that this bugs heat resistant lining, is the result of a blind gradual process which just happened to co-incide with its offensive capabilites, to say nothing of the fact that it fires it about I think 500 times a second, perfectly timed so that it doesint blow itself away...........you have to believe this is the result of a blind process becasue Evolution says so.....
Im sure you feel good having typed fail in BIG letters, anyway, to address your lunacy.
-Natural Selection can only act on evolutions raw materials, those materials are mutations, those mutations, inso far as they have no sense of the future, are blind. Hence the process of evolution is completely blind by th ecurrent model. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with the establishment in this regard.
and here is where you again fail. Yes, the mutations are random. Your further point is?
NS is not at all blind. NS picks out the ones that survives. This makes a gradual change, every stage of this change is constantly of some benefit. There is no "complete" stage.
The bombardier beetle didn't randomly mutate a "full" system like it has now. You're the one disagreeing with establishment.
But what are you saying then, that some divine creator went ahead and made this system?
Your not following, ad your oversimplification is detrimental in this.
-Stop talking about natural selection, Im talking about the dricing force of evolutions, that is, mutations.
NS doesint "pick" in any autonomous way, as your wording makes it sound. It is merely the result of the mutations or environment acting on the organism.
The core of evolution are the mutations.....and I will state again. It is nothing more than faith on your part to assume BLIND mutations could EVER coincide beneficially in ssuch short timescales as it has been shown to happen.
We have lizards whom gained cecal valves in just 36 yesars, as they were re-located to an island with more vegetation, this is unprecedented and the current model cannot explain it.
Respond to this video... Saying natural selection is the answer is a thoughouly unnaceptabe simplification of what we are dealing wiht here.
How is a sperm cell equipped for an environment it has NEVER BEEN IN.......natural selection? Does this NS somehow konw the future?I dont think so, try again next time.
Im not postulating an answer to these overlooked mysteries, merely ttrying to understand biology and microbiology in light of evolution by random mutation and NS.............something Im finding quite hard.
@Hjernespreng ‘Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one’
-I should point out at this stage that I am not a creationist.
-I have quite a bit of an idea of what Im talking about. Though thank you for making yourself sound somewhat infantile.
-Get your facts straightg, Im not debating whether or not evolution happens, Im debating the mechanism, a mechanism which comes up short in explaining most anything in biology, beyond saying it happened therefore it did.
Now if you would like to keep believing that simply saying "what works works and what doesint doesint", can explain a plant which produces the exact pheromone needed to lure bees, to say nothing of how they come out of the ground just as the bees are "in heat" and the extraordinary hammer mechanism it uses to pollenate the bee............thats fine, but please, if all you can say it.............it happened therefore it happened, dont call it science.
So according to you which evolved first? The heat resistant lining or the combustion type weapon system.....to say nothing of the need for an "aimer", lest the chemical factory blew the little guy up?
And what happened before it started shooting at a certain speed to stop it launching itself? I
Yeah ok, Id rather trust the head of the HGP than yourself if you dont.
Any chance you could answer any of my questions?
How is sperm equipped for an environment its never been in? Can natural selection see the future now?
How is there a chircadian cycle within all organisms........it evolved multiple seperate times perfectly not in tune with the sun, but to actually anticipate it.
Evolutionary biology simply has not got the capacity to explain many things in the natural world, its really that simple, and you saying NS and mutations did it is just blind faith with no proof.
I fyou think Im using creationist arguments, thats your problemk, not mine.
Actually, it does have the capacity. However, YOU don't personally know how, therefore you say that it CAN'T explain it. That logic is CHILDISH at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.
However, what are you suggesting? You mention lizards, but give no further mention. What do you think it is then?
I think it is YOU having limited knowledge regarding Evolution. And yes, these lizards are well documented and their changes credited to Evolution.
If you say so boss man. I know the lizards have been credited to evolution. But unfortunatly, it doesint work. Plain and simple. Once again they are making the observations fit the theory. The modern evolutionary synthesis cannot explain such perfectly fine tuned changes in lizards, in which an entire new structure is born, with which the lizards can use to better digest vegetables havin gbeen introduced to an island laden with them. Its just that simple.
Actually, no. See, this is a well established field of science, and the things you are randomly throwing your ignorance at is a well established field of science. Burden of proof ain't on me.
Lizards can't develop on their digestive systems? Actually, yes they can. Scientists were fascinated, but not baffled, and the studies conducted afterwards easily got the recognition of the National science Foundation and many others. Went through peer-review well.
And their digestive tracks weren't "fine tuned". Over thirty years they had turned omnivorous, steadily having plants become their main diet, as the plant fauna was easier and more plentiful food than insects. Their current diet consists 2/3 of plants. Give them another thirty years and they'd probably be herbivores.
Oh yeah, Omnivores is the in-between stage of Carnivores and Herbivores. Nothing amazing.
This was interesting until the daftness at the end; 'has to have formed at once and fully' is completely false. There are many examples of what transitional steps could very likely have looked like, and every single one arises logically from normal biological processes of insects. Every single part of the process which creates that explosive reaction is an offshoot of normal insect defense mechanisms.
I was enjoying this until the narrator busted out with the full frontal stupid at the end. His comment just smacked of the intellectually bankrupt "irreducible complexity" argument.
Why did the entire system need to be formed at once & fully? Irreducible complexity is like saying there can't be transistor radios because a desktop computer stops working if you take out the CPU. I have yet to see an example of an irreducible system that could not serve ANOTHER function if a part is deleted.
There are many ways for the system to have "pieces missing" and make this work. See the cdk007 video on this from the related bar for a full explanation.
Oh....and please closure for all who are responding to my recognition of paapa having been raised in the thicket of the Nigerian rain now petroleum damaged rain forest for the better part, I am British, yes 100% foolishly born in England and Baked in Nigeria, I got something,....erm...d advantage, i lived with the creatures for nearly 7 years.
I'm not too sure about the heat though cos no one ever woke up to find one biting them, you just woke up with subcutaneous burns to your skin, it used to be all over the body, as well especially the face.
I hunted for information on this during my finals at uni, I wanted to do my project as an applied microbiologist focusssing on studying the biotechnological and biological properties of the substance,
OMG,PAAAAAAAAAAAAPA!! i lived with this thing for several years and so did many in schools over nigeria, it is called skirt and blouse or Paapa, or at least the specie we encountered was,
In the rainy season they come out in zillions, no repellent or mosquito net could sheild us from them, they cause acid like burns to extensive parts of the skin,
@Krowsnose no myth, the liquid it gives off burns the skin off you, see my post above, common in nigeria, we called it paapa, it was so venomous if you yelled paapa in front of a group of people they would flee like you had shouted cobra, honestly, no laughing matter, 9.9 out of 10 of us suffered burns form it.
@sabertooth1980 actually, that is not correct, because the explosion chamber would have had no use :) also, there are many questions , like "where are the missing links??..." also, where are ANY of the CREATURES that have anything (while evolution is "by mistakes") NOT USEFUL, but they survived, because, IF THEY ARE SO MANY... AT LEAST ONE SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED WITH USELESS PARTS OF THE BODY!.. (multitude and statistics giving greater chance is the "argument" of evolution, isn't?.. well, then?..)
What are you babbling on about? Oh yes. The "explosion chamber" is useful in that it mixes the chemicals together. Really though you have to start out much simpler and work off what nature already gives.
First you have insects that secret bad tasting chemicals. Check.
Next step is small pores for giving off more of the bad tasting chemical.
Next some of the pores are larger than others and smaller pores start to dissipate in the population Keep in mind that is actually how evolution works...
in the video you gave me, it was not proven, either not complete, or simply with logic failures... but, i repeat, it's ok and normal, while actually Creation is how it actually happened :) (read my 2 comments on that video, to see what i mean). And... once again... WHERE ARE THE MISSING LINKS?... and, also, any little unuseful organ or something of any living (not a mutation) on Earth!... read carefully and you should understand what i meant. :)
i didn't say "Magic man did it", just God(The Father) did it.Now,it is a big problem that we do not have the same meaning for the word "God" :) (btw,the smiley faces are not ironic, it's just that i'm quite sure on my statements, and i like also to smile a lot - it helps - just that!... :) ) For this to go on from here,we need to establish the meanings for the words,otherwise we might just be quarreling non-sense.
i already run out of character's count.. so i'll just give my yahoo id, it's s3nin
@sabertooth1980 u all here talking about how it evolved cos you never been a victim of its powers!!! venomous and dangerous, we used to wake up with burns to our arms, and faces from a similar insect/beetle, paapa, it evolved to protect its specie, as most do,...i.e law of independent assortment , independent selection and random selection of desirable attributes which will enhance success of a particular organism... you don't need a step by step explanation, just a victim, me!!
@naiutube Nature doesn't care about us. To nature, we are but another species of animal. A lifeform that can under go the same evolution as all life forms can.
You trying to appeal to my emotions only makes me laugh. Stay the Fuck away from these guys. Seriously. They have their defenses because that is how they evolved. However if we both agree that it evolved, why are we arguing?
You c the thing with these beetles is you cannot stay away from them, we went to boarding skul, when they are in season, they are everywhere, they slither around quick, paapa as we call d beetle fears nobody, spares nobody u wake up with da scars you could run, you could hide, paapa would find u alrite unless u were lucky, they climb up bunkbeds and all...heaven help us.
@naiutube Then stay indoors. And learn to speak some fucking English. Ye gods it's like you were given a castration gun and decided the most fun thing to do with it was to use it on the dictionary.
@naiutube The mystery is resolved, you have race relation issues.
I speak english, write english, hold an O, A and Pg in English too.
I am also a British National, my folks just expatriated to Nigeria.
The beetles cannot be locked out, they get into buildings, any crack, crevice or opening. You cannot hide inside a house from them, they are already in before you get in and they dont respond to fumigation either.
@naiutube Please You Tube sentence the rather odd creatures that are posting rude comments on the site to a petroleum free month so that our rain forest in Nigeria can perhaps have some respite from them and their offensive ways.
Half of the Nigerian rain forest has been destroyed to supply petroleum to England and the Americas, if we got paid well for it, we could do more than post videos of beetles on you tube.
@naiutube What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in china? And you know they say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness right?
Then again. We are all a little mad. But you seem as mad as a hatter.
@naiutube I'm really trying to fiddle out the point you're trying to make.
Cause the points *I* am making is "We have figured out how such a creature like the bombarder beetle could have arisen via Evolution and Natural Selection". It seems that we are on different pages. And I haven't a Clue what book you're reading from.
@naiutube Cause otherwise you seem like a chattering monkey trying to hide amongst a group of house wives by brandishing a rolling pin and disjointedly talking about Pies.
@ilovetruth "At least one should have survived with useless parts of the body". Humans with the appendix. And most useless mutations don't show at all. For one who claims to love truth, you have very little of it.
The whole system DO NOT have to be formed in one step. A beetle that taste bad survives better. Only one of the components is better than nothing. If it only release when necessary it saves energy. Another bad smelling component even better. A weak concentration enzymes produces less heat. With more heat resistant tissue the higher concentration.
Actually, you need to work on correct grammar, and usage: instead of "The whole system DO NOT..." you should have put: The whole system DOES NOT...
And instead of: A beetle that taste bad survives better. You should have put: A beetle that tastes bad, is more likely to survive. And, the next sentence adds to the confusion: "If it only release when necessary it saves energy." It should be: If it only releaseS... And, releases what?
From wikip: "Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide...This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases...catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones."
None of these compounds or their products here are acids, several are enzymes. p-quinones is the smelly stuff and brakes down by strong acids. Please learn your chemistry before you make a fool of yourself!
@andvil01 Wots da point dearie, u ever been bitten by one....?, collected a sample of the effluent or discharge, seen injuries caused by it?? done a case study in areas where they are in huge numbers?? so y d name calling.....I'm not a chemist I am an applied microbiology, I dont need to learn chemistry, I got an A in it at A and O levels, the whole context of my message was to alert you to someone who has seen similar insects in large numbers.
And it burns your skin off because the reaction makes the liquid boil. Oxidation reactions involving hydrogen peroxide are often very exothermic (give heat).
If there was acids there the p-quinones would brake down and the effect disappear.
@andvil01 dearie whatever the reaction, sadly i never got to find out the real name when i did my finals, I wanted to investigate the biotech and app micro aesthetics but lots of ppl did not even beleive me when i described it.
The bottom line is .....the reaction with skin frm the discharge was sometimes horrifying and i never met a victim who felt the heat from the spraying, u just wake up wit d burns
some aren't being intellectually honest here. If we are tinkering with genetics, what makes you put out the possibility that we could have been designed by someone that has knowledge in genetics,are we that arrogant to believe nothing existed before man discovered it?
thats funny, i look down at the first post i see and the guy was talkin about just what i was 2 seconds before on the phone, i agree, i believe in god, but there probably are many beings below most high, many different versions of us many life forms, think star systems being around billions of years b4 ours, sphere, symmetry, duality? singularity! language symbology, geometrical mathematical designs for your mind, stay reclined!
@brehndan indeed, it is written that we are God's crown of creation. So, if you discover some alien material being more intelligent than us, and better than us from all points of view (even the man is quite very much degraded from "crown of creation" (instead of angels, etc, something material), that would be a discovery for me!... But i am quite convinced that there is none around us like that...
It is written that there is Sorion in the land of Mordor. It is also written that there are Syrians that sing men to their deaths on an island some where. It is also written that you shouldn't mess in the affairs of dragons. For you are crunchy and go good with ketchup.
Point of the matter is, just because it is written in a holy book doesn't mean it is true.
it doesn't actually matter if there's only one animal with this defence mechanism. Darwin said that it would only take one example of a circumstance in which an organism could not have evolved through small, random genetic mutations to prove the theory wrong. This beetle could not have been formed through tiny stages. It needed everything to happen altogether. That is not destructive evolution, that is a design. Consider evolution blown apart by this little beetle.
Darwin should have been looking here instead of at finches... Romans 1:20. Men are without excuse. God's glory is in His creation and here is a prime example - here is the proof.
dont spew this bs, even if evolution isnt real that dosent mean theres a god, and christanity is the most backwards, self contradicting religion there is lol
I'll spew whatever I like. The fact is that here is an example of an organism which could not have evolved from random, independent genetic mutations which in themselves confer no adaptive advantage unless they all occured at the same time. The chance of this? Zero. You really have no clue about Christianity is that is how you percieve it, just as you have no grasp of true science. Evolution is not true science.
no grasp of true science? really, because your saying "zero" chance, "true science" would disagree with that compleetely. plus i even said in my previous comment that there are vedios on here explaining how this could have evolved. i compleetly understand the evolution process. its not hard. plus as a former christan yes i also understand that to.
your compleetly correct, evolution isnt "true science" its because "science" on evolution would be the study of evolution. dipshit
the mathematical chance of even the most basic of digestive enzymes of evolving is, wait for it...1 followed by 40,000zeros. This research was carried out by two neutral scientists who didn't have a vested interest in creation. That is mathematically speaking 'zero' chance...I can't even write that number! I've had a look at the cockroach video and its not particulalryl enlightening...i do believe in micro-evolution. I just can't actually believe that you're suggesting that if...
....someone cuts their hands off and breeds that their offspring will have no hands...its not as if the genes for hand building are contained in your hands!! I know what you're saying in terms of adaptive advantage, but its nonsensical to suggest that cutting off body parts will create an adaptive advantage somehow, and the f1 generation will express a genotype which has removed the need for these genes. EVERY person for HUNDREDS of generations would each have to cut off their hands!!!!
good you just proved me right, because every dog for probbaly about 100 considering its been happning for about 250 years, even more evidence in this is that they actuly bread roaches with harder shells because they ran a needle through its back in a nonleathal place. it took about 50 generations though.
i dont see what your saying "its not as if the genes for hand building are contained in your hands!! " has to do with your argument
By saying that because dogs are born without tails because people cut them off, automatically suggests that the genes which code for them are in some way lost with the cutting off of the tail...and seeing as no genetic information is after the point of fertilization, the genes aren't present in the tail and so can't be lost or rendered obsolete in the act of cutting it off.I really would LOVE to see a link about dogs being born without something which has already 'evolved' to be advantageous plz
somthing has to happen, just because its unlikely dosent mean it wont happen, if its needed, the "chance" for it (in evolution anyway) and its not a huge transition (like going from a 20 degree celcius enviorment to a 2000 degree celcius enviorment) it will happen bottem line........micro evolution over a long period of time, is macro evolution
yes, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. But IMPOSSIBILITY cannot happen, and that is what 'zero chance' is. micro-evolution over a long period of time still creates dogs and still creates cockroaches...As i say I agree with micro-evolution, but it has never been witnessed, amongst your dogs and cockroaches with hard backs and no tails, that these organisms have systematically changed species. Dog breeding has been happening for THOUSANDS of years, yet still dogs...
This brings me back to my final point, which has already been mentioned, that evolution is not true science because it has failed to provide for us in a laboratory condition that one species has changed to another through micro-evolution. Maybe in a million years it might do, but until then the science hasn't proved it right, and you can't say it is science without the evidence gained from first hand proof.
Thousands of years in an evolutionary context is nothing. It requires much more time--hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The fact is, the reason you and I get the flu bug each year is because of evolution. The reason we are not able to wipe out HIV is evolution (microevolution). The viruses are evolving. If you are interested in evidence or an example of something that is evolving rapidly, into new species, there you have it.
@danjames56: You have a very weak understanding of science. Science only requires that you have a falsifiable claim that can be tested. Evolution makes the strong claim that all organisms fit together in a family tree. As we find more and more fossils and start examining the DNA of more animals, we find this claim to be more and more strongly supported.
As for lab conditions for making species google the "Lenski experiment": E Coli evolved into a citric acid *consumer* (previously unhead of).
Im getting a bit tired of trying to debunk every sentence you write..."your compleetly correct, evolution isnt "true science" its because "science" on evolution would be the study of evolution. dipshit"???? Doesn't make sense...never mind the rather rude name on the end...and I'm sure this is taking up your time as it is mine. Just remember, you'll be accountable to th LORD. bye
no, thats not true lol it easily could have, hell were evidence that somthing "couldnt" have evolved to this.....then they found the missing link lol, plus theres not just genetic random mutations, theres intentional genetic changes, they proved that using roaches. you should watch the vedio expalining how this could have easily evolved......evolution has been prove, dogs (boxers i think) are starting to be born without their tails because people cut them off.
your butchered vocabularly is making it hard for me to understand what you're going on about, but when you say it 'easily could have', we're talking about a zero chance - so maybe in your mixed up logic that is the same as 'easy' :s missing link? I suppose you mean transitional forms? Funny how within thousands upon thousands of fossils we haven't actually found any transitional forms that haven't been proven hoaxes...
so go on then...tell me about these 'intentional genetic changes' and these dogs born without tails because people cut them off (which makes absolutely no sense in terms of evolution seeing as cutting off tails confer no adaptive advantage seeing as tails assist with balance and evolution is all about things improving rather than going backwards...) because i'd really like you to explain those two things!
this is just typical. yet another person taken in by the mass secularist media and told 'evolution is right because we say so'. Honestly you guys go on about Christians being brainwashed! The way that it actually is that opposers of evolution are in the minority and are in fact the only people actually thinking about the process! Everyone else is rendered brainwashed by secular hegemony and their own will to force a divine providence out of the equation so they have no-one to answer to.
no you have this backwards, if my hand gets cut off (my body would precive this as bad because loosing a hand would be a near death, although because of medical treatment its not) , and this happens all the way down my gene pool. even with the advantages of a hand your still going TO ADAPT TO YOUR ENVIROMENT
it has nothing what so ever with this whole "the best you can be" thing as you have suggested. evolution isnt cutting the tails off, dogs are being born with out them. THERE ADAPTING
Hey wouldn't it be a blast if some superglue were placed over the beetles bung and suddenly hardend. In effect the beetle would become an organic bomb.
Scientific manner of going from species to species implied here is automatic loss of genetic material & mutation of genes positive or adding towards specific goals in nature (impossible to find in nature without intervention) such that 1 species produces another.
It would make sense for Bible to have words, "Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after its kind" & "God made the beast of the Earth" for surely God would have to direct jumps to each species if it's not iterative.
This would imply that the science of getting to man is fusion of chromosomes as shown in the chromosome difference to apes with other genetic mutations as required to leap to another species (man) immediately.
Final result to make man different then animals is soul otherwise man is merely "dust of the ground" Sure enough without God man is dirt only as Luke 12:5 is equal to Matthew 10:28 in eternal punishment is loss of eternal life or second body & soul (both should have been eternal).
Actually it has been proven that genetic code has not been lost through the process of evolution. Through advances in science via the Human Genome Project, we have discovered that certain traits such as wings, gills, and tails are present in subsequent descendants, even though no physical trait is expressed from said descendant.
This occurs via Regulatory Sequences which controls gene expression. So indeed science does have physical proof that the process of evolution did take place.
Care to offer up a research article on Regulatory Sequences controlling gene expression or information on the Human Genome Project showing humans having information that should show gills, wings, tails, or other traits like that not actually physically shown on the body?
Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, it accounts for the diversity of life.
In addition to your red herring you're now presenting false dichotomy and god of the gaps fallacies (I saw that coming a million miles away.) Just because we don't know how life originated, doesn't mean "god did it." It merely means we don't know yet.
Exactly, or perhaps a crazy theory I like, is infact true and civilisations have been visited by extraterrestrials, explaining the mysteries of the pyramids regarding the alignment to stars etc, and perhaps the bible is true, however "Jesus" is infact an alien being with superior technologies, therefore explaining the so called "Miracles". The bottem line is with the preciseness of existance, anything, ANYTHING is possible.
"We don't know yet" love that! How long do you think it will take "We" to know? Evolution accounts for the diversity of life? Every living thing on earth evolved from a single cell organism? Maybe your brain but that's about as far as I would go with that. You or any computer couldn't come up with a number of years for that to be possible. Why hasn't every or any living thing on earth continued to evolve? You want to be your own God. Even that statement is to deep for you to "know"
I can see speciation and adaptation; taking into account short life cycles and selective pressure. An adaptation like this is possible bug tastes bad due to enzymes it produces, develops structures to hold enzyme+control structures, larger glands work better than smaller, more complex mixtures evolve, new structures, and so on.
Or god did it. No proof, no theory, no testability. Old argument: irreducible complexity.
Actually, can you please give me an example of any adaptation we have observed that has given us an increase in observation and not a loss of information?
why do people who are willfully ignorant of the truth hide in a fairy land of their own imagination, knocking down straw men and crying "I know you are but what am I"
why does science yield such hypothesis's as "Dark energy" and "dark matter" even though there is no proof of such things and no way to detect or test them. It's all imaginary yet no one says these ideas are an excuse from reality as you accuse "God did it"
Strike 1) We can observe dark matter/dark energy's effect on light from distant galaxies as it comes to us. There is light that is sort of distorted that we can observe.
Design is as you say. But you seem to have no grasp of the scientific method in attacking scientific hypothesis.
You have no evidence for design, or of design. Feel free to share with the rest of the class why it's better to say 'design is possible' rather than saying 'we don't know, lets find out'
something that is as yet unexplainable and doesn't fit the model is observed. the theory of dark matter & dark energy (2 separate things) are therefore created. As yet these concepts are undetectable and untestable. And that is my point, that you seem to not grasp scientific methodology and logical reasoning when you accuse design proponents of saying something akin to "since we don't know, God did it"
and yes I realize that "strawman and fallacious" is redundant. It's for effect
By the way do you think it is more logical to reason that this comment is a result of design or some random natural process?
Which possibility seems more plausible to you?
I suppose that all these letters could have just happened to randomly arrange themselves into a readable type and coherent thought string, but surely it is more likely there is design to it, no?
If I looked at something like the great pyramid, would I be any less scientific if I assumed that it is a result of some sort of design? If I reasoned that such a phenomenon is the result of design rather than random chance, is that going to inhibit any possible discoveries? No
Is such a conclusion plausible?
Yes
Is it reasonable and logical?
Yes
Is it scientifically verifiable?
Yes
Does it imply a "designer" and therefore have other implications?.......Yes
The only reason that it implies a designer is because YOU want it to.
If you argue that the phenomenon is designed, you'll become content with your 'god dunnit' answer and won't seek real knowledge. Is that going to inhibit discoveries? YES!
I've already addressed your fallacious straw man argument of "it's not real science if you reason that there is design"
And your absolutely wrong, so stop spouting off with ad-hominem accusations and stop trying to pretend that your views are scientifically plausible. Micro evolution is the only real science, the other 5 types of evolution are purely religious
"the argument for intelligent design is enormously stronger than when I first met it"
Former atheist Anthony Flew(How to Think Straight)
While we're on logical fallacies, how about appeal to authority?
To look at something and say 'that looks designed' is a bad starting point, but if you did choose to start there... Then, on step 2, you have to actually test that, or come up with the most plausible explanation, which is where your argument falls off. With no reason to suppose supernatural forces, and no evidence.
It's not GOOD science if you start conclusion first, then reason towards that conclusion.
IF I'm attacking you, it's mild at most. It's also hostility, not an ad hominem, because an ad hominem would be me trying to discredit your points based on personal attacks. I'm discrediting your points based on reasoned logic. My views aren't only plausible. They're proven fact.
Lots of micro evolution = macro evolution. How do you deny all this evidence and then tell me you're not using conclusion first reasoning?
no micro evolution does not mean macro evolution any more than my hands getting calloused from trying to teach you common sense means that they will evolve into a keyboard.
By the way you must produce some evidence before one can deny it. What evidence is there to show biological evolution is true?
No no, we're not going to have any of that, 'just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean that it might or might not be true' line... Bad argument is bad.
Biological evolution you say? The fossil record? Chicken with the genes to make teeth? Vestigial organs? NYLONASE! Darwin's Finches?
Macro evolution - change above the level of species
Micro evolution - smaller evolutionary changes within a species
there is nothing in the fossil record that gives any credence to the theory of evolution (unless you are counting the fossils that have all been proven to be fakes)
Vestigial organs are a myth, there are none. and nylonase, chickens with teeth and birds beaks are only evidences of micro evolution. I said evidence that biological evolution is true.
It is demonstrably fallacious to cite micro evolution as proof that the other 5 imaginary types of evolution is true
there is nothing in the fossil record that proves evolution (unless you count all the fossils that have been proven to be fakes) And vestigial organs are a myth, they don't exist.
Chickens, nylonase and bird beaks is proof for micro evolution, not biological evolution.
It is demonstrably fallacious to cite micro evolution as proof positive for your fairy tales.
How this beetle is supposed to disprove evolution i don't know! It could easily have evolved it's defences from more simple chemical defences common in many beetles, with the mixture only becoming as volatile (and potentially dangerous to the beetle) at a late stage in it's evolution. It only appears to be impossible if you don't give any time whatsoever to seing if it could be possible! If this is the best 'proof' of creationism, it's pretty weak
OK I tried commenting in here before but it became a name calling thing. Can anyone talk about this with a civil tounge? Fact is we both have the same evidence. Second fact is neither side can prove it. There is NO evidence of one species turning into another. Yes there is evidence of change within species. The second law of thermodynamics precludes anything from getting better, things get worse, no productive changes. The religion of evolution takes more faith than believing in a creator.
No it doesn't take more faith, Science is based on facts not ramblings of a book written thousands of years ago. To say science takes faith is ignorance. Anyways, this is a myth and has been disproven many times. The chemicals in the beetle when combined does not create an explosive reaction it just turns brown. What the beetle has evolved to do is create a catalyst of decomposed matter that it has eaten to react to the two chemicals creating the reaction.
The fact that you bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that you're too ignorant of science to even debate. I suggest you actually learn about the laws of thermodynamics before you you mindlessly quote fallacious arguments put forth by creationists many years ago.
Show me a mechanism which supports abiogenesis, that uses the open system, yet, produces LIFE from NON-LIFE.
The evidence must NOT be a repetive non-life pattern(rock,snowflake, etc.=the,the,the,-small pattern or THE,THE,THE,THE,THE,=large pattern). Show me a mechanism which shows the "HOW" it works.
There is absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis. Show non-life with a code,a message language,decoder mechanism, informational map with directions.
A red herring is a logical fallacy that is introduced by presenting an irrelevant argument to the given topic. In this case abiogensis is irrelevant to the discussion evolution. As such the lack of evidence in abiogenesis (and no scientist in their right mind would deny there is currently a lack of evidence for abiogenesis) in no way detracts from the Theory of Evolution.
If you do not have NON-life to life, then that automatically defaults the observable=life to life evidence. If life came from life, then it's easy to declare intelligence=life=present observable evidence.
Because there is no other rational argument, therefore, it raises the white flag of admission that natural process(non-life)cannot account for life since there is no evidence for it.
i don't understand why you religious fanatics think evolution and creationism contradict each other.
i'm agnostic and i don't see any reason why an existing god wouldn't have chosen to create all living things through an evolutionary process.
and don't come quoting genesis please. humanity ability to understand when these scriptures were allegedly given was pretty much non existing. there's nothing to suggest that the story of the creation of the world shouldn't be taken metaphorically.
well CLEARLY you didn't understand my comment before you wrote yours! I SAID that I don't see why creationism and evolution have to contradict each other IN THE FIRST PLACE. if your thinking is too rigid to understand my point then try to think of it as if the definition of creationism should be REVISED.
That's the point! BY DEFINITION creationism is the rejection of evolution. What you're saying is similar to saying "I don't see why good and evil have to contradict each other". It's just ridiculous to even say that, because by definition they are diametrically opposed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile creationism and evolution. And to say that the definition should be revised is ridiculous as well. You can't just go around changing definitions to suit your own purposes, or words lose meaning.
Creationism and evolution are just as opposite as black and white. You are probably confusing theism, christianity, or something else with creationism.... and possibly evolution with the big bang, the origin of life, or something else. By definition, creationism rejects evolution. That's just what it IS. The rest varies. There are muslim, christian, hindu, aborigine, young earth, old earth, and other types of creationism. The one thing that makes them creationism is their rejection of evolution
wow this is like 2 religon duking it out. I know that creationist use faith and fact to explain their point of view. I see that evolution is a religon too, becuse they use a lot of faith in what they cannot see. the religon of evolution... very interesting
MrJACKCOOLEY 1 month ago
Anyone who says this isint irreducibly complex are doing nothing more than telling fairytales until is can be shown in lab, otherwise, its mere fairytales.
The irreducible complexity arguemnt is NOT dead, by any stretch, and if anyone would like to tell me how it is, Im all ears.
otaku8489 7 months ago
@otaku8489
How we could tell you?
Quite simple: The system ISN'T irreducibly complex. ID proponents relies on a fundamental lack of knowledge of the evolutionary process.
The ones who will have to prove that it is irreducibly complex are the ones who'll need to prove it, not the other way around.
Hjernespreng 7 months ago
@Hjernespreng
-Ah so your proof is.............because you say so. Interesting.
-I dont propose ID, I propose that evolution cant explain many things in the natural world and thus should not be applied to them. Saying a blind process is responsible for thhe abilities of this beetle, is telling fairytales until it can be proven.
Im not saying this is Ireducibly complex in the traditional sense, Im saying its complexity cannot bbe attributed to blind chance and called science. Full Stop.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
In other words, you have to believe that this bugs heat resistant lining, is the result of a blind gradual process which just happened to co-incide with its offensive capabilites, to say nothing of the fact that it fires it about I think 500 times a second, perfectly timed so that it doesint blow itself away...........you have to believe this is the result of a blind process becasue Evolution says so.....
otaku8489 6 months ago
@otaku8489
And here is where you utterly FAIL. Evolution isn't a blind process. Natural selection is anything but blind.
What works works, what doesn't work doesn't work.
You are making one of the most common mistakes of creationists: Believing Evolution is "blind chance".
This goes to show that you have NO IDEA what you are talking about when it comes to Evolution. Not even on a high school level.
So your claims that these animal traits can't be attributed to Evolution are easily dismissed.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Im sure you feel good having typed fail in BIG letters, anyway, to address your lunacy.
-Natural Selection can only act on evolutions raw materials, those materials are mutations, those mutations, inso far as they have no sense of the future, are blind. Hence the process of evolution is completely blind by th ecurrent model. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing with the establishment in this regard.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@otaku8489
and here is where you again fail. Yes, the mutations are random. Your further point is?
NS is not at all blind. NS picks out the ones that survives. This makes a gradual change, every stage of this change is constantly of some benefit. There is no "complete" stage.
The bombardier beetle didn't randomly mutate a "full" system like it has now. You're the one disagreeing with establishment.
But what are you saying then, that some divine creator went ahead and made this system?
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Your not following, ad your oversimplification is detrimental in this.
-Stop talking about natural selection, Im talking about the dricing force of evolutions, that is, mutations.
NS doesint "pick" in any autonomous way, as your wording makes it sound. It is merely the result of the mutations or environment acting on the organism.
otaku8489 6 months ago
The core of evolution are the mutations.....and I will state again. It is nothing more than faith on your part to assume BLIND mutations could EVER coincide beneficially in ssuch short timescales as it has been shown to happen.
We have lizards whom gained cecal valves in just 36 yesars, as they were re-located to an island with more vegetation, this is unprecedented and the current model cannot explain it.
otaku8489 6 months ago
Respond to this video... Saying natural selection is the answer is a thoughouly unnaceptabe simplification of what we are dealing wiht here.
How is a sperm cell equipped for an environment it has NEVER BEEN IN.......natural selection? Does this NS somehow konw the future?I dont think so, try again next time.
otaku8489 6 months ago
Im not postulating an answer to these overlooked mysteries, merely ttrying to understand biology and microbiology in light of evolution by random mutation and NS.............something Im finding quite hard.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng ‘Evolution also results from the accumulation of new information. In the case of a biological mutation, new information is provided by an error of genetic transmission (i.e., a change in the DNA during its transmission from parent to child). Genetic mutations are spontaneous, chance changes, which are rarely beneficial, and more often have no effect, or a deleterious one’
Head of the Human GEnome project.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
-I should point out at this stage that I am not a creationist.
-I have quite a bit of an idea of what Im talking about. Though thank you for making yourself sound somewhat infantile.
-Get your facts straightg, Im not debating whether or not evolution happens, Im debating the mechanism, a mechanism which comes up short in explaining most anything in biology, beyond saying it happened therefore it did.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
Now if you would like to keep believing that simply saying "what works works and what doesint doesint", can explain a plant which produces the exact pheromone needed to lure bees, to say nothing of how they come out of the ground just as the bees are "in heat" and the extraordinary hammer mechanism it uses to pollenate the bee............thats fine, but please, if all you can say it.............it happened therefore it happened, dont call it science.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
So according to you which evolved first? The heat resistant lining or the combustion type weapon system.....to say nothing of the need for an "aimer", lest the chemical factory blew the little guy up?
And what happened before it started shooting at a certain speed to stop it launching itself? I
otaku8489 6 months ago
@otaku8489
Which evolved first? Let Richard Explain this one.
watch?v=Hi4OdrITkqY&feature=related
Genetic mutations are usually either beneficial or neutral, rarely detrimental, and the ones that are get booted from the gene pool by NS.
You and I both undergo HUNDREDS of mutations. We ALL undergo(many) mutations. This separates us from our parents. RARELY are any of these negative.
Full context for the quote, please.
You are using a creationist argument, despite claiming not to be one. Odd.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng That link brought me nowhere.
Yeah ok, Id rather trust the head of the HGP than yourself if you dont.
Any chance you could answer any of my questions?
How is sperm equipped for an environment its never been in? Can natural selection see the future now?
How is there a chircadian cycle within all organisms........it evolved multiple seperate times perfectly not in tune with the sun, but to actually anticipate it.
Indeed DNA repar had to be present from the start
otaku8489 6 months ago
Evolutionary biology simply has not got the capacity to explain many things in the natural world, its really that simple, and you saying NS and mutations did it is just blind faith with no proof.
I fyou think Im using creationist arguments, thats your problemk, not mine.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@otaku8489
Actually, it does have the capacity. However, YOU don't personally know how, therefore you say that it CAN'T explain it. That logic is CHILDISH at best, and willfully ignorant at worst.
However, what are you suggesting? You mention lizards, but give no further mention. What do you think it is then?
I think it is YOU having limited knowledge regarding Evolution. And yes, these lizards are well documented and their changes credited to Evolution.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
If you say so boss man. I know the lizards have been credited to evolution. But unfortunatly, it doesint work. Plain and simple. Once again they are making the observations fit the theory. The modern evolutionary synthesis cannot explain such perfectly fine tuned changes in lizards, in which an entire new structure is born, with which the lizards can use to better digest vegetables havin gbeen introduced to an island laden with them. Its just that simple.
otaku8489 6 months ago
@otaku8489
Actually, no. See, this is a well established field of science, and the things you are randomly throwing your ignorance at is a well established field of science. Burden of proof ain't on me.
Lizards can't develop on their digestive systems? Actually, yes they can. Scientists were fascinated, but not baffled, and the studies conducted afterwards easily got the recognition of the National science Foundation and many others. Went through peer-review well.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
And their digestive tracks weren't "fine tuned". Over thirty years they had turned omnivorous, steadily having plants become their main diet, as the plant fauna was easier and more plentiful food than insects. Their current diet consists 2/3 of plants. Give them another thirty years and they'd probably be herbivores.
Oh yeah, Omnivores is the in-between stage of Carnivores and Herbivores. Nothing amazing.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
If you want to disagree with that, thats fine, but all it does is show the extent of your reasoning capacity.
So wanna answer any of my question?
otaku8489 6 months ago
@Hjernespreng
And I asked you for the context of your quote, not some cut-out.
Quote-mining is a fun little thing, and I take the word of pretty much all credible evolutionary biologists over the head of the HGP.
And again, you are just saying "HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?? I DON'T KNOW! SO EVOLUTION DIDN'T DO IT!"
It is quite obvious here that your knowledge is simply limited, and you are basically filling in the blind spots with willful ignorance.
Hjernespreng 6 months ago
the beetle said...pull my finger, errr antennae...before it gased the spider!
:)
student1276 8 months ago
looks like jizz or he is just taking a shit for defense
Alecridge 10 months ago
we actually do know how the system evolved
henriktor 1 year ago 2
@henriktor whats your source?
WarriorPoetJosiah 10 months ago
lol its like omg omg touch me again *jizz* thats the stuff lol
J037H3A137 1 year ago
This was interesting until the daftness at the end; 'has to have formed at once and fully' is completely false. There are many examples of what transitional steps could very likely have looked like, and every single one arises logically from normal biological processes of insects. Every single part of the process which creates that explosive reaction is an offshoot of normal insect defense mechanisms.
pyrespirit 1 year ago
I was enjoying this until the narrator busted out with the full frontal stupid at the end. His comment just smacked of the intellectually bankrupt "irreducible complexity" argument.
Why did the entire system need to be formed at once & fully? Irreducible complexity is like saying there can't be transistor radios because a desktop computer stops working if you take out the CPU. I have yet to see an example of an irreducible system that could not serve ANOTHER function if a part is deleted.
eyeammi 1 year ago 7
@eyeammi
My thoughts exactly...
I wonder if this was from an ID video now...
Nonetheless this beetle was very interesting, and ill probably look it up some more. However, not from this user's channel anymore.
krazedwasian 1 year ago
Makes you wonder what the transitional states were like, preceding the current. Probably started off as a nervous fart!
papersplease 1 year ago
I wish so bad I could do this.
BREAKMEKNEES 1 year ago
There are many ways for the system to have "pieces missing" and make this work. See the cdk007 video on this from the related bar for a full explanation.
websnarf 1 year ago
Oh....and please closure for all who are responding to my recognition of paapa having been raised in the thicket of the Nigerian rain now petroleum damaged rain forest for the better part, I am British, yes 100% foolishly born in England and Baked in Nigeria, I got something,....erm...d advantage, i lived with the creatures for nearly 7 years.
naiutube 1 year ago
I'm not too sure about the heat though cos no one ever woke up to find one biting them, you just woke up with subcutaneous burns to your skin, it used to be all over the body, as well especially the face.
I hunted for information on this during my finals at uni, I wanted to do my project as an applied microbiologist focusssing on studying the biotechnological and biological properties of the substance,
naiutube 1 year ago
OMG,PAAAAAAAAAAAAPA!! i lived with this thing for several years and so did many in schools over nigeria, it is called skirt and blouse or Paapa, or at least the specie we encountered was,
In the rainy season they come out in zillions, no repellent or mosquito net could sheild us from them, they cause acid like burns to extensive parts of the skin,
naiutube 1 year ago
Yeah, God felt totally bad for making such a sucky beetle and had to make it up to him by giving him a laser gun butt.
Thunderfvck 1 year ago
God loves beetles, over 65000 different species! It is like he made the universe with beetles in mind, not us.
Chibling 1 year ago
creationists suck beetle's butt
silentfighter2 1 year ago
:14
Looks like a diseased dick... explosion chamber lol
Krowsnose 1 year ago
@Krowsnose no myth, the liquid it gives off burns the skin off you, see my post above, common in nigeria, we called it paapa, it was so venomous if you yelled paapa in front of a group of people they would flee like you had shouted cobra, honestly, no laughing matter, 9.9 out of 10 of us suffered burns form it.
naiutube 1 year ago
could someone tell me why in every 'bombardier beetle" video, there's always something about god??
ARTHURREED1 1 year ago
When was this filmed? It's well behind the times.
silencesoloud12 1 year ago
Actually... We figured this one out too.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
@sabertooth1980 actually, that is not correct, because the explosion chamber would have had no use :) also, there are many questions , like "where are the missing links??..." also, where are ANY of the CREATURES that have anything (while evolution is "by mistakes") NOT USEFUL, but they survived, because, IF THEY ARE SO MANY... AT LEAST ONE SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED WITH USELESS PARTS OF THE BODY!.. (multitude and statistics giving greater chance is the "argument" of evolution, isn't?.. well, then?..)
ilovetruth 2 years ago
What are you babbling on about? Oh yes. The "explosion chamber" is useful in that it mixes the chemicals together. Really though you have to start out much simpler and work off what nature already gives.
First you have insects that secret bad tasting chemicals. Check.
Next step is small pores for giving off more of the bad tasting chemical.
Next some of the pores are larger than others and smaller pores start to dissipate in the population Keep in mind that is actually how evolution works...
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
But really... /watch?v=SUvLR2yyWuE
We've figured this one out too.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
in the video you gave me, it was not proven, either not complete, or simply with logic failures... but, i repeat, it's ok and normal, while actually Creation is how it actually happened :) (read my 2 comments on that video, to see what i mean). And... once again... WHERE ARE THE MISSING LINKS?... and, also, any little unuseful organ or something of any living (not a mutation) on Earth!... read carefully and you should understand what i meant. :)
shalom!... and good day everyone!... :)
ilovetruth 2 years ago
Yawn. Translation from you "Magic man dun it."
You do realize just because one side can't explain the nitty gritty doesn't mean that it is "Gawdidit" right?
Lots of pauses in your post makes it look like you don't understand what's going on.
This is the Hypothesis of how it Happened. This is showing how it could have happened.
Now your condescending smiley faces pretty much tell me that you'd rather tell me to fuck off.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
i didn't say "Magic man did it", just God(The Father) did it.Now,it is a big problem that we do not have the same meaning for the word "God" :) (btw,the smiley faces are not ironic, it's just that i'm quite sure on my statements, and i like also to smile a lot - it helps - just that!... :) ) For this to go on from here,we need to establish the meanings for the words,otherwise we might just be quarreling non-sense.
i already run out of character's count.. so i'll just give my yahoo id, it's s3nin
ilovetruth 2 years ago
No. And Magic Man equates to Gawd. Just a minor suggestion. Don't put your Yahoo ID up on youtube... That's just Begging for someone to troll you.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
However, that video is showing that the beat shown above isn't irreducible complex. We can show step by step how such a system could have evolved.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
@sabertooth1980 u all here talking about how it evolved cos you never been a victim of its powers!!! venomous and dangerous, we used to wake up with burns to our arms, and faces from a similar insect/beetle, paapa, it evolved to protect its specie, as most do,...i.e law of independent assortment , independent selection and random selection of desirable attributes which will enhance success of a particular organism... you don't need a step by step explanation, just a victim, me!!
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube Nature doesn't care about us. To nature, we are but another species of animal. A lifeform that can under go the same evolution as all life forms can.
You trying to appeal to my emotions only makes me laugh. Stay the Fuck away from these guys. Seriously. They have their defenses because that is how they evolved. However if we both agree that it evolved, why are we arguing?
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@sabertooth1980 lol lol lol he he he he !!!!!!! OMG,
You c the thing with these beetles is you cannot stay away from them, we went to boarding skul, when they are in season, they are everywhere, they slither around quick, paapa as we call d beetle fears nobody, spares nobody u wake up with da scars you could run, you could hide, paapa would find u alrite unless u were lucky, they climb up bunkbeds and all...heaven help us.
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube Then stay indoors. And learn to speak some fucking English. Ye gods it's like you were given a castration gun and decided the most fun thing to do with it was to use it on the dictionary.
Better yet move to Canada.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@naiutube The mystery is resolved, you have race relation issues.
I speak english, write english, hold an O, A and Pg in English too.
I am also a British National, my folks just expatriated to Nigeria.
The beetles cannot be locked out, they get into buildings, any crack, crevice or opening. You cannot hide inside a house from them, they are already in before you get in and they dont respond to fumigation either.
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube Please You Tube sentence the rather odd creatures that are posting rude comments on the site to a petroleum free month so that our rain forest in Nigeria can perhaps have some respite from them and their offensive ways.
Half of the Nigerian rain forest has been destroyed to supply petroleum to England and the Americas, if we got paid well for it, we could do more than post videos of beetles on you tube.
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube What the hell does that have to do with the price of tea in china? And you know they say that talking to yourself is the first sign of madness right?
Then again. We are all a little mad. But you seem as mad as a hatter.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@naiutube I'm really trying to fiddle out the point you're trying to make.
Cause the points *I* am making is "We have figured out how such a creature like the bombarder beetle could have arisen via Evolution and Natural Selection". It seems that we are on different pages. And I haven't a Clue what book you're reading from.
Is your message simply "Save the rainforests"?
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@naiutube Cause otherwise you seem like a chattering monkey trying to hide amongst a group of house wives by brandishing a rolling pin and disjointedly talking about Pies.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
@ilovetruth "At least one should have survived with useless parts of the body". Humans with the appendix. And most useless mutations don't show at all. For one who claims to love truth, you have very little of it.
silencesoloud12 1 year ago
He is defies the evolution theory!!!
God is great!!! :D
kilohurts 2 years ago
I have read some incredibly stupid comments here. I will say this though. Neither side has proved ANYTHING.
willieboy561 2 years ago
The whole system DO NOT have to be formed in one step. A beetle that taste bad survives better. Only one of the components is better than nothing. If it only release when necessary it saves energy. Another bad smelling component even better. A weak concentration enzymes produces less heat. With more heat resistant tissue the higher concentration.
Once again the ID fails!
andvil01 2 years ago
Actually, you need to work on correct grammar, and usage: instead of "The whole system DO NOT..." you should have put: The whole system DOES NOT...
And instead of: A beetle that taste bad survives better. You should have put: A beetle that tastes bad, is more likely to survive. And, the next sentence adds to the confusion: "If it only release when necessary it saves energy." It should be: If it only releaseS... And, releases what?
betterMatt2 2 years ago
@andvil01 you're failing at "A weak concentration enzymes produces less heat. With more heat resistant tissue the higher concentration"
ilovetruth 2 years ago
@andvil01 honestly its not enzymes its acid, it burns the skin off you.
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube
From wikip: "Secretory cells produce hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide...This chamber is lined with cells that secrete catalases and peroxidases...catalases and peroxidases rapidly break down the hydrogen peroxide and catalyze the oxidation of the hydroquinones into p-quinones."
None of these compounds or their products here are acids, several are enzymes. p-quinones is the smelly stuff and brakes down by strong acids. Please learn your chemistry before you make a fool of yourself!
andvil01 1 year ago
@andvil01 Wots da point dearie, u ever been bitten by one....?, collected a sample of the effluent or discharge, seen injuries caused by it?? done a case study in areas where they are in huge numbers?? so y d name calling.....I'm not a chemist I am an applied microbiology, I dont need to learn chemistry, I got an A in it at A and O levels, the whole context of my message was to alert you to someone who has seen similar insects in large numbers.
naiutube 1 year ago
@naiutube
And it burns your skin off because the reaction makes the liquid boil. Oxidation reactions involving hydrogen peroxide are often very exothermic (give heat).
If there was acids there the p-quinones would brake down and the effect disappear.
andvil01 1 year ago
@andvil01 dearie whatever the reaction, sadly i never got to find out the real name when i did my finals, I wanted to investigate the biotech and app micro aesthetics but lots of ppl did not even beleive me when i described it.
The bottom line is .....the reaction with skin frm the discharge was sometimes horrifying and i never met a victim who felt the heat from the spraying, u just wake up wit d burns
naiutube 1 year ago
some aren't being intellectually honest here. If we are tinkering with genetics, what makes you put out the possibility that we could have been designed by someone that has knowledge in genetics,are we that arrogant to believe nothing existed before man discovered it?
SoLoLaamer 2 years ago
thats funny, i look down at the first post i see and the guy was talkin about just what i was 2 seconds before on the phone, i agree, i believe in god, but there probably are many beings below most high, many different versions of us many life forms, think star systems being around billions of years b4 ours, sphere, symmetry, duality? singularity! language symbology, geometrical mathematical designs for your mind, stay reclined!
brehndan 2 years ago
@brehndan indeed, it is written that we are God's crown of creation. So, if you discover some alien material being more intelligent than us, and better than us from all points of view (even the man is quite very much degraded from "crown of creation" (instead of angels, etc, something material), that would be a discovery for me!... But i am quite convinced that there is none around us like that...
shalom!...
ilovetruth 2 years ago
It is written that there is Sorion in the land of Mordor. It is also written that there are Syrians that sing men to their deaths on an island some where. It is also written that you shouldn't mess in the affairs of dragons. For you are crunchy and go good with ketchup.
Point of the matter is, just because it is written in a holy book doesn't mean it is true.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
It is also written that the scream of a Mandrake root, used in the treatment of petrification, can kill you.
grits011 2 years ago
Or that if you show striped sticks to goats they will bare striped kids.And that you can sell you daughter into slavery.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Evolution isn't a ladder, There isn't enough evidence for your god's existence, And angels' aren't real either.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
What a load of crap.
The Irreducibly complex card has already been debunked MANY times. Give up!
tomaselvis 2 years ago
the bombadieer beetles two chemicals only explode at certian temperatures at certian pressures, this could have easiley evolved in light of this
sulthus 2 years ago
It's stuff like this that makes me "not" believe in evolution even more..
Krackachris7891 2 years ago
funny not many animals have this complex of a defence system, meaning that your argument means nothing
sulthus 2 years ago
it doesn't actually matter if there's only one animal with this defence mechanism. Darwin said that it would only take one example of a circumstance in which an organism could not have evolved through small, random genetic mutations to prove the theory wrong. This beetle could not have been formed through tiny stages. It needed everything to happen altogether. That is not destructive evolution, that is a design. Consider evolution blown apart by this little beetle.
danjames56 2 years ago
Darwin should have been looking here instead of at finches... Romans 1:20. Men are without excuse. God's glory is in His creation and here is a prime example - here is the proof.
danjames56 2 years ago
dont spew this bs, even if evolution isnt real that dosent mean theres a god, and christanity is the most backwards, self contradicting religion there is lol
sulthus 2 years ago
I'll spew whatever I like. The fact is that here is an example of an organism which could not have evolved from random, independent genetic mutations which in themselves confer no adaptive advantage unless they all occured at the same time. The chance of this? Zero. You really have no clue about Christianity is that is how you percieve it, just as you have no grasp of true science. Evolution is not true science.
danjames56 2 years ago
no grasp of true science? really, because your saying "zero" chance, "true science" would disagree with that compleetely. plus i even said in my previous comment that there are vedios on here explaining how this could have evolved. i compleetly understand the evolution process. its not hard. plus as a former christan yes i also understand that to.
your compleetly correct, evolution isnt "true science" its because "science" on evolution would be the study of evolution. dipshit
sulthus 2 years ago
the mathematical chance of even the most basic of digestive enzymes of evolving is, wait for it...1 followed by 40,000zeros. This research was carried out by two neutral scientists who didn't have a vested interest in creation. That is mathematically speaking 'zero' chance...I can't even write that number! I've had a look at the cockroach video and its not particulalryl enlightening...i do believe in micro-evolution. I just can't actually believe that you're suggesting that if...
danjames56 2 years ago
....someone cuts their hands off and breeds that their offspring will have no hands...its not as if the genes for hand building are contained in your hands!! I know what you're saying in terms of adaptive advantage, but its nonsensical to suggest that cutting off body parts will create an adaptive advantage somehow, and the f1 generation will express a genotype which has removed the need for these genes. EVERY person for HUNDREDS of generations would each have to cut off their hands!!!!
danjames56 2 years ago
good you just proved me right, because every dog for probbaly about 100 considering its been happning for about 250 years, even more evidence in this is that they actuly bread roaches with harder shells because they ran a needle through its back in a nonleathal place. it took about 50 generations though.
i dont see what your saying "its not as if the genes for hand building are contained in your hands!! " has to do with your argument
sulthus 2 years ago
By saying that because dogs are born without tails because people cut them off, automatically suggests that the genes which code for them are in some way lost with the cutting off of the tail...and seeing as no genetic information is after the point of fertilization, the genes aren't present in the tail and so can't be lost or rendered obsolete in the act of cutting it off.I really would LOVE to see a link about dogs being born without something which has already 'evolved' to be advantageous plz
danjames56 2 years ago
somthing has to happen, just because its unlikely dosent mean it wont happen, if its needed, the "chance" for it (in evolution anyway) and its not a huge transition (like going from a 20 degree celcius enviorment to a 2000 degree celcius enviorment) it will happen bottem line........micro evolution over a long period of time, is macro evolution
sulthus 2 years ago
yes, just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen. But IMPOSSIBILITY cannot happen, and that is what 'zero chance' is. micro-evolution over a long period of time still creates dogs and still creates cockroaches...As i say I agree with micro-evolution, but it has never been witnessed, amongst your dogs and cockroaches with hard backs and no tails, that these organisms have systematically changed species. Dog breeding has been happening for THOUSANDS of years, yet still dogs...
danjames56 2 years ago
This brings me back to my final point, which has already been mentioned, that evolution is not true science because it has failed to provide for us in a laboratory condition that one species has changed to another through micro-evolution. Maybe in a million years it might do, but until then the science hasn't proved it right, and you can't say it is science without the evidence gained from first hand proof.
danjames56 2 years ago
micro evolution is macro evolution, that all i have to say, you cant belive in one without the other
sulthus 2 years ago 9
Macro evolution is accumulated micro evolution, not the other way around.
OwnedByScience 2 years ago
So only first hand evidence is valid?
Then you also don't believe in police investigations. They gather facts and draw conclusions. According to you it's worthless.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
Thousands of years in an evolutionary context is nothing. It requires much more time--hundreds of thousands to millions of years. The fact is, the reason you and I get the flu bug each year is because of evolution. The reason we are not able to wipe out HIV is evolution (microevolution). The viruses are evolving. If you are interested in evidence or an example of something that is evolving rapidly, into new species, there you have it.
erotylid 2 years ago
@erotylid viruses are not alive beings. also, i understood that evolution is actually getting more things, from less to complex?...
ilovetruth 2 years ago
@danjames56: You have a very weak understanding of science. Science only requires that you have a falsifiable claim that can be tested. Evolution makes the strong claim that all organisms fit together in a family tree. As we find more and more fossils and start examining the DNA of more animals, we find this claim to be more and more strongly supported.
As for lab conditions for making species google the "Lenski experiment": E Coli evolved into a citric acid *consumer* (previously unhead of).
websnarf 1 year ago
"Dog breeding has been happening for THOUSANDS of years, yet still dogs... "
Please show me a dog fossil. Surely if they have only been dogs there should be tons of dog fossils. Prove your hypothesis.
tomaselvis 2 years ago
"the mathematical chance of even the most basic of digestive enzymes of evolving is, wait for it..."
So, what do think of the new research in England? Parts of RNA assembles itself(!) with only simple chemicals.
And you say it's impossible...
tomaselvis 2 years ago 9
Im getting a bit tired of trying to debunk every sentence you write..."your compleetly correct, evolution isnt "true science" its because "science" on evolution would be the study of evolution. dipshit"???? Doesn't make sense...never mind the rather rude name on the end...and I'm sure this is taking up your time as it is mine. Just remember, you'll be accountable to th LORD. bye
danjames56 2 years ago
no, thats not true lol it easily could have, hell were evidence that somthing "couldnt" have evolved to this.....then they found the missing link lol, plus theres not just genetic random mutations, theres intentional genetic changes, they proved that using roaches. you should watch the vedio expalining how this could have easily evolved......evolution has been prove, dogs (boxers i think) are starting to be born without their tails because people cut them off.
sulthus 2 years ago
your butchered vocabularly is making it hard for me to understand what you're going on about, but when you say it 'easily could have', we're talking about a zero chance - so maybe in your mixed up logic that is the same as 'easy' :s missing link? I suppose you mean transitional forms? Funny how within thousands upon thousands of fossils we haven't actually found any transitional forms that haven't been proven hoaxes...
danjames56 2 years ago
so go on then...tell me about these 'intentional genetic changes' and these dogs born without tails because people cut them off (which makes absolutely no sense in terms of evolution seeing as cutting off tails confer no adaptive advantage seeing as tails assist with balance and evolution is all about things improving rather than going backwards...) because i'd really like you to explain those two things!
danjames56 2 years ago
this is just typical. yet another person taken in by the mass secularist media and told 'evolution is right because we say so'. Honestly you guys go on about Christians being brainwashed! The way that it actually is that opposers of evolution are in the minority and are in fact the only people actually thinking about the process! Everyone else is rendered brainwashed by secular hegemony and their own will to force a divine providence out of the equation so they have no-one to answer to.
danjames56 2 years ago
no you have this backwards, if my hand gets cut off (my body would precive this as bad because loosing a hand would be a near death, although because of medical treatment its not) , and this happens all the way down my gene pool. even with the advantages of a hand your still going TO ADAPT TO YOUR ENVIROMENT
it has nothing what so ever with this whole "the best you can be" thing as you have suggested. evolution isnt cutting the tails off, dogs are being born with out them. THERE ADAPTING
sulthus 2 years ago
yes i agree
its a beetle...
just please let the retarded children watch bugs spray acid
peace
xx
momocallaghan 2 years ago
Lol, look at these 2 douchebags arguing over youtube.
toastedjuice 2 years ago 2
Hey wouldn't it be a blast if some superglue were placed over the beetles bung and suddenly hardend. In effect the beetle would become an organic bomb.
Now that would be a video worth watching!
goodguys121796 2 years ago
Scientific manner of going from species to species implied here is automatic loss of genetic material & mutation of genes positive or adding towards specific goals in nature (impossible to find in nature without intervention) such that 1 species produces another.
It would make sense for Bible to have words, "Let the Earth bring forth the living creature after its kind" & "God made the beast of the Earth" for surely God would have to direct jumps to each species if it's not iterative.
PRT 2 NXT
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
PRT 2
This would imply that the science of getting to man is fusion of chromosomes as shown in the chromosome difference to apes with other genetic mutations as required to leap to another species (man) immediately.
Final result to make man different then animals is soul otherwise man is merely "dust of the ground" Sure enough without God man is dirt only as Luke 12:5 is equal to Matthew 10:28 in eternal punishment is loss of eternal life or second body & soul (both should have been eternal).
ABAisSCIENCE 3 years ago
Actually it has been proven that genetic code has not been lost through the process of evolution. Through advances in science via the Human Genome Project, we have discovered that certain traits such as wings, gills, and tails are present in subsequent descendants, even though no physical trait is expressed from said descendant.
This occurs via Regulatory Sequences which controls gene expression. So indeed science does have physical proof that the process of evolution did take place.
nightschase 2 years ago
Care to offer up a research article on Regulatory Sequences controlling gene expression or information on the Human Genome Project showing humans having information that should show gills, wings, tails, or other traits like that not actually physically shown on the body?
ABAisSCIENCE 2 years ago
No primordial soup,no amph-rept-birds,etc.
If nature didn't do it, then the extension of what we see=observable-life comes from life=intelligence-wins by default.
youVSmee 3 years ago
Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life, it accounts for the diversity of life.
In addition to your red herring you're now presenting false dichotomy and god of the gaps fallacies (I saw that coming a million miles away.) Just because we don't know how life originated, doesn't mean "god did it." It merely means we don't know yet.
jinexile 3 years ago 13
Exactly, or perhaps a crazy theory I like, is infact true and civilisations have been visited by extraterrestrials, explaining the mysteries of the pyramids regarding the alignment to stars etc, and perhaps the bible is true, however "Jesus" is infact an alien being with superior technologies, therefore explaining the so called "Miracles". The bottem line is with the preciseness of existance, anything, ANYTHING is possible.
Shortpaulio 3 years ago
"We don't know yet" love that! How long do you think it will take "We" to know? Evolution accounts for the diversity of life? Every living thing on earth evolved from a single cell organism? Maybe your brain but that's about as far as I would go with that. You or any computer couldn't come up with a number of years for that to be possible. Why hasn't every or any living thing on earth continued to evolve? You want to be your own God. Even that statement is to deep for you to "know"
pelman203 2 years ago
Uhhh all living things are continuing to evolve, thanks for playing though.
jinexile 2 years ago 3
And you can prove this also?
pelman203 2 years ago
Google: Observed speciation
jinexile 2 years ago
Lets put it to a simple test.
I can see speciation and adaptation; taking into account short life cycles and selective pressure. An adaptation like this is possible bug tastes bad due to enzymes it produces, develops structures to hold enzyme+control structures, larger glands work better than smaller, more complex mixtures evolve, new structures, and so on.
Or god did it. No proof, no theory, no testability. Old argument: irreducible complexity.
Go on, tell me god did it again, dumbass :-)
happysplodie 2 years ago
Actually, can you please give me an example of any adaptation we have observed that has given us an increase in observation and not a loss of information?
hbah427 2 years ago
NYLONASE
happysplodie 2 years ago
I do suppose nylon eating bacteria were in the garden of eden. Damn Eve and her weaving skills.
Crucifryd 2 years ago
re: speciation and adaptation
why do people who are willfully ignorant of the truth hide in a fairy land of their own imagination, knocking down straw men and crying "I know you are but what am I"
why does science yield such hypothesis's as "Dark energy" and "dark matter" even though there is no proof of such things and no way to detect or test them. It's all imaginary yet no one says these ideas are an excuse from reality as you accuse "God did it"
Design is reasonable and plausible
diamy00 2 years ago
Strike 1) We can observe dark matter/dark energy's effect on light from distant galaxies as it comes to us. There is light that is sort of distorted that we can observe.
Design is as you say. But you seem to have no grasp of the scientific method in attacking scientific hypothesis.
You have no evidence for design, or of design. Feel free to share with the rest of the class why it's better to say 'design is possible' rather than saying 'we don't know, lets find out'
-H
happysplodie 2 years ago 2
"We can observe dark matter/dark energy's effect"
something that is as yet unexplainable and doesn't fit the model is observed. the theory of dark matter & dark energy (2 separate things) are therefore created. As yet these concepts are undetectable and untestable. And that is my point, that you seem to not grasp scientific methodology and logical reasoning when you accuse design proponents of saying something akin to "since we don't know, God did it"
This is a strawman and fallacious
diamy00 2 years ago
and yes I realize that "strawman and fallacious" is redundant. It's for effect
By the way do you think it is more logical to reason that this comment is a result of design or some random natural process?
Which possibility seems more plausible to you?
I suppose that all these letters could have just happened to randomly arrange themselves into a readable type and coherent thought string, but surely it is more likely there is design to it, no?
diamy00 2 years ago
or put it another way,
If I looked at something like the great pyramid, would I be any less scientific if I assumed that it is a result of some sort of design? If I reasoned that such a phenomenon is the result of design rather than random chance, is that going to inhibit any possible discoveries? No
Is such a conclusion plausible?
Yes
Is it reasonable and logical?
Yes
Is it scientifically verifiable?
Yes
Does it imply a "designer" and therefore have other implications?.......Yes
diamy00 2 years ago
I suppose this watch?v=_7jhYgt11qQ is all lies and conspiracy then? We're working on testing things.
You argue from complexity. It looks designed, therefore it is designed.
YES, it IS less scientific, because you start with a conclusion 'looks designed' and then say 'therefor, design is a possible cause'
I care that knowledge is accurate, even if it may not have a direct effect on something. Insert Occam's razor argument here.
happysplodie 2 years ago
The only reason that it implies a designer is because YOU want it to.
If you argue that the phenomenon is designed, you'll become content with your 'god dunnit' answer and won't seek real knowledge. Is that going to inhibit discoveries? YES!
Is such a conclusion plausible?
YES! get started on your testing.
Is it reasonable and logical?
YES! get started on your testing.
Is it scientifically verifiable?
NO! unless you're holding out on us.
Does it imply a designer?
NO! Well... only to you
happysplodie 2 years ago 2
I've already addressed your fallacious straw man argument of "it's not real science if you reason that there is design"
And your absolutely wrong, so stop spouting off with ad-hominem accusations and stop trying to pretend that your views are scientifically plausible. Micro evolution is the only real science, the other 5 types of evolution are purely religious
"the argument for intelligent design is enormously stronger than when I first met it"
Former atheist Anthony Flew(How to Think Straight)
diamy00 2 years ago
While we're on logical fallacies, how about appeal to authority?
To look at something and say 'that looks designed' is a bad starting point, but if you did choose to start there... Then, on step 2, you have to actually test that, or come up with the most plausible explanation, which is where your argument falls off. With no reason to suppose supernatural forces, and no evidence.
It's not GOOD science if you start conclusion first, then reason towards that conclusion.
happysplodie 2 years ago
IF I'm attacking you, it's mild at most. It's also hostility, not an ad hominem, because an ad hominem would be me trying to discredit your points based on personal attacks. I'm discrediting your points based on reasoned logic. My views aren't only plausible. They're proven fact.
Lots of micro evolution = macro evolution. How do you deny all this evidence and then tell me you're not using conclusion first reasoning?
happysplodie 2 years ago
no micro evolution does not mean macro evolution any more than my hands getting calloused from trying to teach you common sense means that they will evolve into a keyboard.
By the way you must produce some evidence before one can deny it. What evidence is there to show biological evolution is true?
diamy00 2 years ago
No no, we're not going to have any of that, 'just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean that it might or might not be true' line... Bad argument is bad.
Biological evolution you say? The fossil record? Chicken with the genes to make teeth? Vestigial organs? NYLONASE! Darwin's Finches?
Macro evolution - change above the level of species
Micro evolution - smaller evolutionary changes within a species
Micro leads to Macro.
I'm no longer feeding this troll.
Good day.
-H
happysplodie 2 years ago
I said evidence
there is nothing in the fossil record that gives any credence to the theory of evolution (unless you are counting the fossils that have all been proven to be fakes)
Vestigial organs are a myth, there are none. and nylonase, chickens with teeth and birds beaks are only evidences of micro evolution. I said evidence that biological evolution is true.
It is demonstrably fallacious to cite micro evolution as proof that the other 5 imaginary types of evolution is true
diamy00 2 years ago
there is nothing in the fossil record that proves evolution (unless you count all the fossils that have been proven to be fakes) And vestigial organs are a myth, they don't exist.
Chickens, nylonase and bird beaks is proof for micro evolution, not biological evolution.
It is demonstrably fallacious to cite micro evolution as proof positive for your fairy tales.
diamy00 2 years ago
failogic
manan0nim0us4 3 years ago 3
this has been thoroughly debunked. there's dozens of youtube videos on the very subject.
cerealboxconspiracy 3 years ago
eh - the beetle hasn't been debunked. the creationist part of this.
cerealboxconspiracy 3 years ago
How this beetle is supposed to disprove evolution i don't know! It could easily have evolved it's defences from more simple chemical defences common in many beetles, with the mixture only becoming as volatile (and potentially dangerous to the beetle) at a late stage in it's evolution. It only appears to be impossible if you don't give any time whatsoever to seing if it could be possible! If this is the best 'proof' of creationism, it's pretty weak
BillyHerbie 3 years ago 4
OK I tried commenting in here before but it became a name calling thing. Can anyone talk about this with a civil tounge? Fact is we both have the same evidence. Second fact is neither side can prove it. There is NO evidence of one species turning into another. Yes there is evidence of change within species. The second law of thermodynamics precludes anything from getting better, things get worse, no productive changes. The religion of evolution takes more faith than believing in a creator.
zdude44 3 years ago
Don't try to change their minds mate. They'll stomp your pearls into the mud and attack you.
badfender223 3 years ago
No it doesn't take more faith, Science is based on facts not ramblings of a book written thousands of years ago. To say science takes faith is ignorance. Anyways, this is a myth and has been disproven many times. The chemicals in the beetle when combined does not create an explosive reaction it just turns brown. What the beetle has evolved to do is create a catalyst of decomposed matter that it has eaten to react to the two chemicals creating the reaction.
devin1822 3 years ago
The fact that you bring up the 2nd law of thermodynamics means that you're too ignorant of science to even debate. I suggest you actually learn about the laws of thermodynamics before you you mindlessly quote fallacious arguments put forth by creationists many years ago.
jinexile 3 years ago
Is abiogenesis a Law,Theory, a hypothesis, or simply an "idea?" Show me evidence, a law, a model which supports this "idea".
Abiogenesis is a simply an "idea".
Yes or No? If not, show me the evidence, law,or the mechanism which supports it.
youVSmee 3 years ago
Show me a mechanism which supports abiogenesis, that uses the open system, yet, produces LIFE from NON-LIFE.
The evidence must NOT be a repetive non-life pattern(rock,snowflake, etc.=the,the,the,-small pattern or THE,THE,THE,THE,THE,=large pattern). Show me a mechanism which shows the "HOW" it works.
There is absolutely NO evidence for abiogenesis. Show non-life with a code,a message language,decoder mechanism, informational map with directions.
Non-life=Natural
Life=Mind
youVSmee 3 years ago
Abiogenesis is a red herring, Evolution does not claim to explain it.
jinexile 3 years ago 2
That's because it's just an "idea". Unless you can prove that it's a,law, theory, or hypothesis.
If there is no evidence for abiogenesis, then what would you classify it as? Philocophical?
youVSmee 3 years ago
A red herring is a logical fallacy that is introduced by presenting an irrelevant argument to the given topic. In this case abiogensis is irrelevant to the discussion evolution. As such the lack of evidence in abiogenesis (and no scientist in their right mind would deny there is currently a lack of evidence for abiogenesis) in no way detracts from the Theory of Evolution.
jinexile 3 years ago
If you do not have NON-life to life, then that automatically defaults the observable=life to life evidence. If life came from life, then it's easy to declare intelligence=life=present observable evidence.
Because there is no other rational argument, therefore, it raises the white flag of admission that natural process(non-life)cannot account for life since there is no evidence for it.
youVSmee 3 years ago
i don't understand why you religious fanatics think evolution and creationism contradict each other.
i'm agnostic and i don't see any reason why an existing god wouldn't have chosen to create all living things through an evolutionary process.
and don't come quoting genesis please. humanity ability to understand when these scriptures were allegedly given was pretty much non existing. there's nothing to suggest that the story of the creation of the world shouldn't be taken metaphorically.
omegaquark 3 years ago
Look up the definition of "creationism" before you start talking about it, will you?
PBDPBD 3 years ago
i know what's creationism,
i don't know however what's your problem..
omegaquark 3 years ago
Clearly, you don't. BY DEFINITION creationism is directly opposed to evolution. In fact, that pretty much IS the definition of creationism.
PBDPBD 3 years ago
well CLEARLY you didn't understand my comment before you wrote yours! I SAID that I don't see why creationism and evolution have to contradict each other IN THE FIRST PLACE. if your thinking is too rigid to understand my point then try to think of it as if the definition of creationism should be REVISED.
omegaquark 3 years ago
That's the point! BY DEFINITION creationism is the rejection of evolution. What you're saying is similar to saying "I don't see why good and evil have to contradict each other". It's just ridiculous to even say that, because by definition they are diametrically opposed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile creationism and evolution. And to say that the definition should be revised is ridiculous as well. You can't just go around changing definitions to suit your own purposes, or words lose meaning.
PBDPBD 3 years ago
good and evil are binary opposites like black and white, 1 or 0.
with the definition of evolution and creationism, however, there's a lot of gray in between.
reconciliation and the merging of the two is imminent and unavoidable until that day when we're much smarter than we're right now.
omegaquark 3 years ago
Creationism and evolution are just as opposite as black and white. You are probably confusing theism, christianity, or something else with creationism.... and possibly evolution with the big bang, the origin of life, or something else. By definition, creationism rejects evolution. That's just what it IS. The rest varies. There are muslim, christian, hindu, aborigine, young earth, old earth, and other types of creationism. The one thing that makes them creationism is their rejection of evolution
PBDPBD 3 years ago
whatever man
omegaquark 3 years ago
Hey, don't believe me? look it up. That's what I suggested in the first place.
PBDPBD 3 years ago
wy dn't you two stop bickering and let's just find out what's true?
-Rocky James
maskedknight0 3 years ago