Real Science Friday- Caterpillar Kills Atheism

[griffinsavard]

What?

What?

I've posted some quite long and valid posts on this thread, as per usual they are skimmed over with a few glib statements, hence my retort. You seem to demand far more than you are prepared to provide.

The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

I mean seriously ANY who thinks the world is 10,000 years old or less is simply wrong and needs to learn more about the natural world.

I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.

God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

Perhaps that's what the 1000 year reign will be it'll be where you're all schooled properly, yeah you have faith but boy were you dumb.

:kookoo: The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Absolutely unscientific, all emotion here

:kookoo: Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Absolutely self-contradictory statement. This statement doesnt even follow the rules of logic. Totally unscientific.

:kookoo: Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

Totally absurd statement...search what the scientists of evolution have agreed upon concerning the age of the earth. 'Science' has changed the date of the earth numerous times

:kookoo:
I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.
No, you will be the one embarrassed.

Overwhelming mountains of evidence???? You mean the transitional fossil record :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

Maybe you should be a little more open minded when it comes to these issues. I have studied both areas and I adhere to the most logical...

Me God designed plants, animals, people

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people
God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You also. It is because you can give no clear evidence of evolution actually happening in the world, that we find it unrealistic and unscientific..

:rotfl:
Really? NO evidence? Or just no evidence you're willing to look at, consider, or accept?

Its never been observed in the history books of mankind..

Well, if you're looking in history books for evolution, that could be part of your problem!

Deal with it, your way of life is empty..

My way of life? You goofball. Evolution isn't a lifestyle, it's a scientific theory- one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories ever made. You are free to close your eyes, free to believe stories instead of examining facts, and free to live your life under the delusions you apparently cherish so much but the rest of us will keep moving forward.

Repent and be saved.

Repent of what, dullard? Believing the evidence in front of me rather than the tired protests of biblical literalists who don't even have the first glimmering of understanding of what it is they are actually disbelieving in or why?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people

Wow- I don't think I've ever come across such an absurd misrepresentation of ToE. :kookoo:

 

[MaryContrary]

Okay, so maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Science really isn't my thing so that's totally possible. Still...did anyone answer the evolving caterpillar thing yet? I'm not seeing it anywhere. :idunno:

 

[SUTG]

Okay, so maybe I'm missing something somewhere. Science really isn't my thing so that's totally possible. Still...did anyone answer the evolving caterpillar thing yet?

Yes, Jefferson answered it in the OP when he referred to "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.'

 

[DoogieTalons]

:kookoo: The case for a young earth is non existant outside religion, you're just wrong. It's not even funny.

Absolutely unscientific, all emotion here

No you're wrong, if you think the earth is young you are either incredibly dumb or you have access to only 1 % of the information, or you follow genesis blindly into a pit of ignorance.

:kookoo: Young earth is as wrong as it get's it has no supported evidence at all. The scientists that support it have degrees and doctorates in totally different fields than they comment upon.

Absolutely self-contradictory statement. This statement doesnt even follow the rules of logic. Totally unscientific.

it follows the rules of a conversation though. Get a grip and read a book... no not that one !!

:kookoo: Here's the facts that the vast majority of the freethinking world of science agrees on.

The world is very old, if you think otherwise you are wrong. Educate yourself.

If you told me 2+2 was five because God said it was you would be equally wrong.

Totally absurd statement...search what the scientists of evolution have agreed upon concerning the age of the earth. 'Science' has changed the date of the earth numerous times

Science will continue to revise it findings, religion never will and here's the Rub... you don't even have anything to revise because no one has come up with an accurate date for the begining of the earth from the bible and when they speculate at 6 to 10 thousand years any fossil puts them out to factors of millions, YEC is a joke, it's not even funny that you believe it.

:kookoo:
I would be totally embarrased to present myself before any God, given the evidence and understanding we have and say.. hey some dude said you did it in six days and I faithfully believed it despite common sense and overwhelming mountains of evidence.
No, you will be the one embarrassed.

Overwhelming mountains of evidence???? You mean the transitional fossil record :dizzy: :dizzy: :dizzy:

No you're an idiot, more than transitional fossils, radiometric dating, astonomy, biology, physics... aaah what the point seriously it's like talking with children, is this what Jesus meant by "be as little children" ???

Maybe you should be a little more open minded when it comes to these issues. I have studied both areas and I adhere to the most logical...

No you don't you adhere to the most wrong, how's that.

Me God designed plants, animals, people

Yeah badly. Nothing about the make up of plants animals or people shows any design. You may think it does but when you break it all down if you had all the power of god would you make a MAN totally dependant on the life and death of billions of bacteria in your Gut, I mean would that be a good design ?

Would you design a tiger to kill when you had no death in your first plan ?

You :kookoo: Dirt chanced plants, animals, people
God will stick you back in grade school and give you a dunce cap.

Yeah pop that dunce cap on yourself if you don't understand the very basics of the theory of evolution then don't make yourself look so stupid by using words like chance you're about 10 years behind in you rebutal try at least getting upto date, just skip by the irreducable complexity whilst you work your way up though that's been rubbished too.

 

[MaryContrary]

Yes, Jefferson answered it in the OP when he referred to "random mutations, small incremental changes, and natural selection.'

Then you're going to have to spell it out for me. Seems impossible what you're suggesting. :squint:

 

[griffinsavard]

uh oh

uh oh

No you're wrong, if you think the earth is young you are either incredibly dumb or you have access to only 1 % of the information, or you follow genesis blindly into a pit of ignorance.
it follows the rules of a conversation though. Get a grip and read a book... no not that one !!

Science will continue to revise it findings, religion never will and here's the Rub... you don't even have anything to revise because no one has come up with an accurate date for the begining of the earth from the bible and when they speculate at 6 to 10 thousand years any fossil puts them out to factors of millions, YEC is a joke, it's not even funny that you believe it.

No you're an idiot, more than transitional fossils, radiometric dating, astonomy, biology, physics... aaah what the point seriously it's like talking with children, is this what Jesus meant by "be as little children" ???
No you don't you adhere to the most wrong, how's that.
Yeah badly. Nothing about the make up of plants animals or people shows any design. You may think it does but when you break it all down if you had all the power of god would you make a MAN totally dependant on the life and death of billions of bacteria in your Gut, I mean would that be a good design ?

Would you design a tiger to kill when you had no death in your first plan ?
Yeah pop that dunce cap on yourself if you don't understand the very basics of the theory of evolution then don't make yourself look so stupid by using words like chance you're about 10 years behind in you rebutal try at least getting upto date, just skip by the irreducable complexity whilst you work your way up though that's been rubbished too.

Another crazed evolutionist who has :luigi: from reason so his pitiful world view will fit...

I don't feel that I need to get up to date on evolution. That theory should have been abandoned a long time ago. Its hard to believe it has made it this long

You say there is no design in things. Talk about rubbish. How long has it been since you took a walk outside? You also act like you could do a better job than God :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That one made me roll...

"Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!' Isa 45:9 NLT

 

[DoogieTalons]

Then you're going to have to spell it out for me. Seems impossible what you're suggesting. :squint:

Mary, research has been conducted into insect life cycles and evolution and various hypothesis have been formed, already.

When Bob says nothing has been done in this field he's talking out of his bible.

You have to understand that Catapillar is just a name for a Larva of a butterfly, it's the same creature. Research has been done in many insects larvae stage.

It's like the nymph stage of insects that hatch for various survival reasons be it sexual or a need for resources when the resources exists.

So instead of a catapillar laying eggs with enough food to support the full development then expend less energy when the larvae can fend for themselves.

Well I say fend for themselve many many many larvae don't make it, thats why there is strength in numbers. Not a good "DESIGN" but it's a good survival of Genes technique and it obviously works so it's evolution in action.

They make up in numbers what they lack in survival Skill, ever wondered why we only have one or two at a time, if god really wanted us to multiply he'd have had us laying thousands of eggs instead of this inneficent 9 month cycle which only 100 years ago used to kill 7 to 15 women and children per hundred... average of 1 in 10 !!! Go God, Go God, Go God...[/sarcasm]

These larvae do not fully liquify, as after thier fifth molt they have the beginnings of wings under thier skin.

The transformation is not difficult to imagine if you realise that a larvea is just an exposed embryonic stage, where as we transform in the womb, the larvae just does it outside.

About 88% of all insects go through what is known as complete metamorphosis, not just butterflys. Complete metamorphosis has 4 stages: [Source uen.org]

Egg - A female insects lays eggs.
Larva - Larvae hatch from the eggs. They do not look like adult insects. They usually have a worm-like shape. Caterpillers, maggots, and grubs are all just the larval stages of insects. Larvae molt their skin several times and they grow slightly larger.
Pupa - Larvae make cocoons or chysalis around themselves. Larvae don't eat while they're inside their cocoons. Their bodies develop into an adult shape with wings, legs, internal organs, etc. This change takes anywhere from 4 days to many months.
Adult - Inside the cocoon, the larvae change into adults. After a period of time, the adult breaks out of the cocoon.

Now because butterfly are beautiful we can take the step of personal incredulity and say wow a miracle... but when it's a fly and a bucket of squirming maggots we're not so inclinded to see it as so wonderous.

I wonder why Bob didn't use the humble house fly which goes through the same external gestaion as a butterfly as his "case study" probably as the housefly doesn't illicit such emotion and therfore would not prick that sense of wonder so sharply.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Another crazed evolutionist who has :luigi: from reason so his pitiful world view will fit...

Coming from the religous I'm flattered.

I don't feel that I need to get up to date on evolution. That theory should have been abandoned a long time ago. Its hard to believe it has made it this long

You should or you will remain ignorant, many field of science rely on evolutionary theory.

and if we're talking shelf life, shouldn't you have thrown away this Hebrew Torah based nonsense, we've moved on, the worlds a better place. Catch up or you'll waste your life.

You say there is no design in things. Talk about rubbish. How long has it been since you took a walk outside? You also act like you could do a better job than God :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Given the power ascribed to God I could design a better human and a better life and I'd be a lot less jealous and petty.

You wouldn't have to eat, or defacate. You could be perfect.

and if you all got me miffed I wouldn't have to flood the world in a failed and contrived attempt to sort it all out.

That one made me roll...

Yup I bet it did.

"Destruction is certain for those who argue with their Creator. Does a clay pot ever argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying, `Stop, you are doing it wrong!' Does the pot exclaim, `How clumsy can you be!' Isa 45:9 NLT

Dude seriouly your arguments are ten years old, creationism became intelligent design, intelligent design became garbage, your crowd have left those failed arguments behind and are probably coming up with rebrand to get back in those schools.

 

[Stripe]

With all that research, Doogie, one would think there should be an answer to the question posed....

 

[MaryContrary]

Mary, research has been conducted into insect life cycles and evolution and various hypothesis have been formed, already.

When Bob says nothing has been done in this field he's talking out of his bible.

You have to understand that Catapillar is just a name for a Larva of a butterfly, it's the same creature. Research has been done in many insects larvae stage.

It's like the nymph stage of insects that hatch for various survival reasons be it sexual or a need for resources when the resources exists.

So instead of a catapillar laying eggs with enough food to support the full development then expend less energy when the larvae can fend for themselves.

Well I say fend for themselve many many many larvae don't make it, thats why there is strength in numbers. Not a good "DESIGN" but it's a good survival of Genes technique and it obviously works so it's evolution in action.

They make up in numbers what they lack in survival Skill, ever wondered why we only have one or two at a time, if god really wanted us to multiply he'd have had us laying thousands of eggs instead of this inneficent 9 month cycle which only 100 years ago used to kill 7 to 15 women and children per hundred... average of 1 in 10 !!! Go God, Go God, Go God...[/sarcasm]

These larvae do not fully liquify, as after thier fifth molt they have the beginnings of wings under thier skin.

The transformation is not difficult to imagine if you realise that a larvea is just an exposed embryonic stage, where as we transform in the womb, the larvae just does it outside.

About 88% of all insects go through what is known as complete metamorphosis, not just butterflys. Complete metamorphosis has 4 stages: [Source uen.org]

Egg - A female insects lays eggs.
Larva - Larvae hatch from the eggs. They do not look like adult insects. They usually have a worm-like shape. Caterpillers, maggots, and grubs are all just the larval stages of insects. Larvae molt their skin several times and they grow slightly larger.
Pupa - Larvae make cocoons or chysalis around themselves. Larvae don't eat while they're inside their cocoons. Their bodies develop into an adult shape with wings, legs, internal organs, etc. This change takes anywhere from 4 days to many months.
Adult - Inside the cocoon, the larvae change into adults. After a period of time, the adult breaks out of the cocoon.

Now because butterfly are beautiful we can take the step of personal incredulity and say wow a miracle... but when it's a fly and a bucket of squirming maggots we're not so inclinded to see it as so wonderous.

I wonder why Bob didn't use the humble house fly which goes through the same external gestaion as a butterfly as his "case study" probably as the housefly doesn't illicit such emotion and therfore would not prick that sense of wonder so sharply.

Doogie. That's a whole lot of words there and none of them go anywhere near explaining how or why this transformation would evolve via random mutation. Quite the opposite. I get the impression you're avoiding the question pretty hard there. Can evolution theory address this or not? If it can't, fine. No biggie. But at least concede the theory has major holes in it.
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me about atheist evolutionists. They're every bit as fanatically loyal and blindly irrational about evolution as they accuse us of being about God.

"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly." If evolution theory can't do this then, if you're really the freethinker you claim to be, then you should have no problem admitting the theory has big holes. Instead you seem to pretty consistently hold it up as some kind of established truth, beyond any doubt, while mocking anyone who dares question it.

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

Sure it makes sense. We have butterflies. They continue to reproduce successfully. There's no denying that.
This does not answer the question how this process could ever have evolved by random mutation. At all. This is your version of "goddidit". Apparently, evolutiondidit.

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

When you only have one answer the questions are pointless, isn't it great that most of the world don't think that way ? You'd still be pointing at the moon ad believeing it to be a "light".
I think creationists are stupid on purpose.

Do I need to point out how completely hypocritical you're being?

 

[Stripe]

EVOLUTIONDIDIT!

 

[DoogieTalons]

Doogie. That's a whole lot of words there and none of them go anywhere near explaining how or why this transformation would evolve via random mutation. Quite the opposite. I get the impression you're avoiding the question pretty hard there. Can evolution theory address this or not? If it can't, fine. No biggie. But at least concede the theory has major holes in it.
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me about atheist evolutionists. They're every bit as fanatically loyal and blindly irrational about evolution as they accuse us of being about God.

Now I see how you want to learn, you see if I copied or wrote something about how it could happen and why metamorphosis happens then you'd just not want to listen. You don't want to hear or learn anything that could possibly discount Genesis. It's like talking to children.

"Give a rough description of how evolution could possibly explain a caterpillar liquefying itself and re-creating itself into a butterfly." If evolution theory can't do this then, if you're really the freethinker you claim to be, then you should have no problem admitting the theory has big holes. Instead you seem to pretty consistently hold it up as some kind of established truth, beyond any doubt, while mocking anyone who dares question it.

They don't liquify themselves, they simply grow, would you say an embryo liquifies itself or would you say that it's changes are just growth.

I explained how this happens in the womb, and how a pupae does it outside after getting it's energy from plants instead of a nutrient rich and genetically expensive egg. You're being dumb on purpose. It's like you only read every third word or something.

Sure it makes sense. We have butterflies. They continue to reproduce successfully. There's no denying that.
This does not answer the question how this process could ever have evolved by random mutation. At all. This is your version of "goddidit". Apparently, evolutiondidit.

When you look at the many insects that metamorphosise you can see different stages of this type of development. Which shows how it could have grown.

We have thread weavers, we have chyrsalys' we have leaf folders, all different ways of doign the same job, you'd think if it was designed God would have it down pat. But no a cocoon is easy to eat, it's just universally safer than no cocoon. Do you not understand evolution at all ? When you ask what good is half an eye... well it's better than a quarter of an eye.

You won't get to grips with how tiny changes can work because you already believe they don't happen.

Why not for one week open your mind, buy a book like Climbing Mount immprobable and really try to understand it rather than relying on a dusty old tomb of hebrew superstition.

It's not nearly as difficult to imagine as Bob Enyart and now yourself is making out.

Bob makes the assertion it's impossible out of personal credulity. I made a case for it not being so incredidible a few posts back, are you ignoring these ?

Do I need to point out how completely hypocritical you're being?

No but you do need to get out more.

Here's where you all get in a tiz try understand that according to studies, it is strongly suggested that the larvae of holometabolic insects (those who undergo a complete metamorphasis) are, essentially, precocious embryos that had hatched before they assumed the adult or nymphal forms.

It's not a different creature it's just a growing butterfly.

They evolved in the same way all animals did, infact the very existance of them support evolution and survival and certainly not some grand design.

Did you read my post and think about it or did you scan it for my personal opinion so you could rubbish it. You still have this full liquification in your head as a stumbling block yet you're probably happy to say a Blastocyst is a baby.

 

[DoogieTalons]

EVOLUTIONDIDIT!

Yes stipe nice, if we personified evolution I guess your sarcastic retort would have a little humour in it. However evolution is aword describing a natural process, not some antithesis to God.

How do you know that God didn't create the evolutionary process ?

You may even be rubbishing one of your Gods creations.

 

[Stripe]

Doogie.

If evolution is so well grounded in reality it should be able to provide at least an idea (other than evolutiondidit) on how the butterfly developed the ability to perform metamorphosis upon itself. Would you like to explain or is your defence of your faith limited to, "I don't like what Christians believe so evolution must be true"?

 

[Stripe]

They don't liquify themselves, they simply grow, would you say an embryo liquifies itself or would you say that it's changes are just growth.

Depends what kind of metamorphosis you are talking about:
In holometabolism, the larvae differ markedly from the adults. Insects which undergo holometabolism pass through a larval stage, then enter an inactive state called pupa, or chrysalis, and finally emerge as adults. Holometabolism is also known as "complete" and "complex" metamorphosis. Whilst inside the pupa, the insect will excrete digestive juices, to destroy much of the larva's body, leaving a few cells intact. The remaining cells will begin the growth of the adult, using the nutrients from the broken down larva. This process of cell death is called histolysis, and cell regrowth histogenesis.

-Wickedpedia
​

 

[MaryContrary]

So, should I just go ahead and give up on getting a straight answer out of you, Doogie?

They evolved in the same way all animals did, infact the very existance of them support evolution and survival and certainly not some grand design.

That's evolutiondidit, you doofus. If that's your answer then you're a hypocrite.

Did you read my post and think about it or did you scan it for my personal opinion so you could rubbish it. You still have this full liquification in your head as a stumbling block yet you're probably happy to say a Blastocyst is a baby.

I scanned back, read and thought about all your posts because I wanted to be sure I wasn't wasting your time on something you'd already answered. All I see is evolutiondidit. Just like the whole majority of this post of yours that I didn't bother responding to, it was 90% "Your just a dumb Christian!" and 10% "Evolutiondidit!"
Every one of your posts boil down to "it happens". Well, duh. The question is "how could this evolve into being?"

If you already answered the question and I just missed it out of stupidity then by all means cut and paste it right here and show me up. Right now you're just being a pigheaded jerk. I'm not impressed. I know plenty of pigheaded jerks. I don't know anyone who can answer this question, though.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Here's the facts behind this thread.

Bob Enyart has made a classic mistake with his fallicy of ignorance.

Because he doesn't know how it could have happened he's just saying god did it.

We are but a few hundred years into our understanding of the world once we got out of the dark ages of religion and we don't know everything about every insect that ever lived.

Metamorphosis is a growth stage, just as the dolphin loses it's "Limbs" as a feotus, the catapillar looses it's hind legs and grows wings inside it's chrysalis, just as a maggot grows wings inside it's cocoon.

Because an exact answer does not yet exist it doesn't mean it won't, it also means when it is explained it won't matter.

Creationists ignore every bit of evidence that does not point to genesis.

It ignores biology, it ignores astronomy, it ignores geology and it ignores physics.

I gave you a step by step diagram as how each stage of the the growth of a butterfly outside of the egg has been beneficial to it's survival would you suddenly believe in evolution ?

Once the bombadier beetle was the death of Atheism, strange how that was rebuked, this thread is in my subscribed. When something comes up I'll be there to say I told you so and despite evidence no doubt you wil lbe there to say God Did It.

 

[DoogieTalons]

So, should I just go ahead and give up on getting a straight answer out of you, Doogie?

Nope because an answer does not yet exist does not mean God exists.

If you already answered the question and I just missed it out of stupidity then by all means cut and paste it right here and show me up. Right now you're just being a pigheaded jerk. I'm not impressed. I know plenty of pigheaded jerks. I don't know anyone who can answer this question, though.

Ok If I could show you how in small steps a butterfly giving birth to an egg that containts fully grown butterfly, could have evolved into a butterfly giving birth to an egg which hatches early, stores energy and goes on its growth cycle outside the egg "could" have happened.

Would you believe Evolutionary theory over Genesis ? Would this one explanation of the benefits of external growth allow you to shake yourself free of this daft religion and perhaps read a bit more about real life, the universe and everything ?