It could be theoretically disproven, anything can I could theoretically disprove the earth revolves around the sun. It wouldn't actually disprove it.
Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
While not quite a disproof of evolution---find me a mammal fossil in the Cambrian. Not only would that put a big crimp in evolutionary theory it would for the most part blow much of current scientific theory out of the water.
Would seem to be another fertile area for creation scientists (sorry just too lazy to put it in quotes) to do research and be a home run if they found one.
Dr Bowers has also been quoted as saying the chrysalis is "just almost a bag of fluid" so go figure, the facts and research bear out that the catapillar has the beginning of wings forming under it's skin.
Rich Fluid Media does not mean "Liquid" it means a rich fluid media otherwise being a scientist he would have said... liquid.
It would be accurate to say a human is moslty liquid as we are 70% water.
Creationists often datamine real scientists as it's where real work is done. They have no shame regarding who they will temporarily side with, like a dirty little asteroid basking in the reflected glory of the sun it orbits, hoping somehow it's magnificence will rub off on them if only for long enough to make them glow to the observer.
Creationists are just so used to quote mining they cannot help themselves!!!
Would it not be more intellectually honest for Pastor Bob to contact Dr. Brower and bring his questions up with him, at least get Brower's take. God forbid we should try to confuse people with the facts. So much easier to be incredulous and then say "Goddidit".
SUTG
New member
The "rough" description is the theory of evolution itself. It isn't my fault you don't understand it.
SUTG
New member
Let me guess; you've never taken a Biology class, right? :chuckle:
SUTG
New member
Yes, but not by any of the Christians in this thread.
That is your homework for tomorrow. (HINT: See a basic Biology text)
LOL, it's good to see you have such a stronghold on the truth.
Perhaps you can enlighten us with exactly how a beetle without the ability nor the genetic capacity to do what the Bombadier beetle does evolved the ability to do so.
That is the most pathetic explanation ever put forth. Evolution in a general sense refers to a change in population. How does a change in a population (i.e. beak sizes in finches) explain the process of metamorphasis?
Just saying the word "evolution" doesn't make it so.
Evoken
New member
Hmm...not really. That Enyart believes Brower is wrong about evolution does not mean that he thinks he is wrong about everything he says.
Evo
SUTG
New member
Boy, you don't ask for much, do you? How detailled of an explanation do you want? Is down to the atomic level enough, or should we include the trajectories of all of the elemetary particles as well?
Really, though, this is just another example of the irreducible complexity argument, which is obsolete. Why this argument is obsolete is left as an exercise for the reader.:execute:
Okay, well, I'm glad some of you can admit that it is disproveable. My only reason for getting in this thread is that Doogie claimed that we argued from incredulity. But in fact, we argue from science, stating that such theories as evolution seem to go against the basic laws of science, such as laws of thermo and entropy. Our main argument is not that, we don't understand it, so God did it, as portrayed by many evolutionists who don't wish to even consider our point of view, but that there are several limits to matter and energy, which have been observed and proved by science, which prevent evolution from happening. Information and building blocks do not organize themselves. Ask any scientist or engineer(which I am currently training to be btw) if complex things build themselves from raw unorganized elements..
So seriously guys, enough of that silliness. Whether you agree with our argument or not, at least be respectful and don't misrepresent our position. Thanks..
One answer [talkorigins]
Insects produce quinones for tanning their cuticle. Quinones make them distasteful, so the insects evolve to produce more of them and to produce other defensive chemicals, including hydroquinones.
The insects evolve depressions for storing quinones and muscles for ejecting them onto their surface when threatened with being eaten. The depression becomes a reservoir with secretory glands supplying hydroquinones into it. This configuration exists in many beetles, including close relatives of bombardier beetles (Forsyth 1970).
Hydrogen peroxide becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. Catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, ensuring that more quinones appear in the exuded product.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, generating oxygen and producing a foamy discharge, as in the bombardier beetle Metrius contractus (Eisner et al. 2000).
As the output passage becomes a hardened reaction chamber, still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, gradually becoming today's bombardier beetles.
So if it was God's design, and God didn't have death in his creation, then why design a self defence mechanism such as this... or did god Re-Create after the fall ?
SUTG
New member
The only people who ever bring this up anymore are creationists who do not understand evolution or entropy. The argument is just plain silly. Go research it online or read up on entropy. If you still think there is an argument left, come back and tell us about it.
It has been considered and rejected long ago. Just like astronomers won't be bothered with astrology or the idea that the sky is a big dome covering the Earth, biologists don't really bother with creationism much anymore.
:nono: :nono: :nono:
Yes they do. Most scientist and engineers are aware of this. Would you like some examples?
OK. Since I am presumably one of the main culprits, I'll do my best. :chuckle: :cheers:
It is just that there are so many YECs here, and elsewhere, that pretend to have genuine scientific concerns with the theory of evolution, who turn out to be frauds. Their real objection is on religious grounds. They have no scientific background or understanding of basic biology, but they pretend to have arised at their position by sincere scientific inquiry.
This is interesting, not being an entomologist, I cannot say more than grasshoppers or locusts are good to eat. A little trail mix and a few dozen of these makes for a good days out meal. It helps keep you out all day without carrying a pack.
Look all your arguments are shallow and here's why.
The earth is not a closed system, thermodynamics rule number 2 need not apply.
also the longest strand with the most information of DNA is in the Ameoba. Hey go figure. Perhaps new info hasn't been added, just changed and shrunk.
Thats right a single Human DNA strand has less information than that of the oldest known life the single celled organism. We are less complex at the celular level than an ameoba thats entropy for you. We are more organised, but hey a JPG has less information than a BMP... it's just more organised.
So burn your straw men now stop trying to defend the already long refuted and learn something about your world.
You can use a computer, you can type, you can't be completely retarded by religion.
Don't even bother. That issue has been beaten to death. Go learn some chemistry and biology.
- Status