PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Bombardier beetle

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
admin

|      |       Report Post



Administrator
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would it be impossible for the Bombardier beetle to evolve?

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_bombardier_beetle.HTM


(Edited by admin 4/30/2002 at 4:01 PM.)
 


Posts: 31 | Posted: 3:00 PM on April 30, 2002 | IP
Mad_dog

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The administration has suspended this post pending review. Check back later for updates.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 04:43 AM on May 7, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creationists always love to find wonderfully complex examples of organisms like the bombardier beetle and claim that it as evidence for creationism because they cannot imagine how such a complex organ/organism can possible evolve via natural sellection.  Perhaps if they would seriously study biology, they might learn how evolution actually works and how series of fossils and DNA studies fill in the missing links.  Over tim, every example they have every chosen in the past has been shown to be an example of their lack of immagination and education rather than an actual argument for Creationism.  Just because they are not smart, educated, and immaginative enough to grasp how something can have occurred is absolutely no argument that others (e.g., scientists who have studdied and researched to topics can).  The Creationists should give up every one of their arguments that start out with "This is so wonderful or complex, that it could not have evolved, but must have been created by the Christian god."  Even the Catholics don't use logically false argument anymore.  
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:11 PM on September 12, 2002 | IP
kuanteen

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

imagination is not science. science is knowledge derived from experimenting, hypothesising and observation. just pause for a moment, and try to explain the mechanism of evolution, give some evidence, hypothesis, and lastly, how will you observe that? imagination is for artists not scientists


-------
AMD Athlon XP 1600+ | Gigabyte GA-7VTXH+ | Samsung 256 Mb. DDR-SDRAM | Seagate 40 Gb. 7200 rpm ATA100 | nVidia GeForce 2 MX400 64 mb | LG 24x10x40 CD-RW 8 Mb. Buffer | ASUS 52x CD-ROM | NEC Zip100 | US Robotics 56 K Ext. Modem | MAG 15'' Trinitron
 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 11:13 PM on September 20, 2002 | IP
Xenjael

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, without imagination there would be no science to study..., if there was no science than there would be no thought therefor no imagination...so u could say technically it is science
 


Posts: 83 | Posted: 9:50 PM on September 21, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, it would not, because  every living creature can evolve; cockroaches used to be poisin weak, but they evoled to be immune!


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 09:00 AM on September 25, 2002 | IP
Sakata

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Guest at 1:11 PM on September 12, 2002 :
Just because they are not smart, educated, and immaginative enough


smart and educated eh? and the fact that the presedent of the US is a christain means what? that you are so much more smart and educated than him? It is a real sign of maturity when you go calling everyone dumb and uneducated because they have a different opinion.





-------
No time for mediocrity.

People call me a Bible-Thumping reactionist ...and I'm proud to bear the name.
 


Posts: 293 | Posted: 6:46 PM on October 13, 2002 | IP
Exxoss

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I believe what he ment was that because people are not able to grasp every single concept, there is no real way to say something is true.  Creationists like to say some weird things without understand every single possibility.  The bombarder beetle is able to evolve no matter what anyone says; every living organism can, however, there are factors that need to be taken in account: conditions, time, place, etc.


-------
I am Exxoss, come to save you all from your impending doom!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

-Exxoss
 


Posts: 438 | Posted: 5:06 PM on November 1, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you guys are being hypocritical. everytime there is a complex issue that is hard to understand, you do the same exact thing, except you say "its because of evolution". whenever there is something that is hard to explain, you always simply say that it is because of evolution.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:52 AM on November 20, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For a good retort of this argument I recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 03:12 AM on November 23, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from beavischrist at 03:12 AM on November 23, 2002 :
For a good retort of this argument I recommend The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.



And for an even better retort of his argument, read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 11:35 AM on November 23, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What did you think of Dawkins response?
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 12:44 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Also, if you agree with Behe, then you believe that humans decended from some other species, that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution does in fact create new species of animals.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:17 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Also, if you agree with Behe, then you believe that humans decended from some other species, that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution does in fact create new species of animals."

I never said that I agreed completely with Behe. I simply said that the bombardier beetle is spoken of, and it is a very interesting book.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 4:59 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Still, what is the problem with Dawkins explanation? Behe only raises it as something that he sees as an irreducable system while Dawkins actually takes it apart and tries to explain how it came about. What is your critique of Dawkins?
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 5:28 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dawkins has not ever given an example of a mutation increasing genetic information. Not a single example. Basically, the theory of evolution depends on this to be true, and it has never been observed.

For a technical rebuttal of Dawkins' ideas, go here:

Has Dawkins solved it?


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 5:47 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My question was what do you personally find unsatisfying about his explanation of the bombardier beetle in the Blind Watchmaker, not what is the first site you come to when you type "Dawkins criticism" into Google.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 5:49 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

For a rebuttal of the increasing information argument
http://www.roberthanan.com/heresy/creation.html
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 5:56 PM on November 23, 2002 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go get 'em Beavis.  I say you will slam dunk kc on the evolution vs creation debate.  Have so far anyway.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:45 AM on November 24, 2002 | IP
kc2gwx

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"For a rebuttal of the increasing information argument
http://www.roberthanan.com/heresy/creation.html"

This site is a incoherent rambling of random facts, some false. Here is what I mean.

"The creationist argument that evolution cannot account for increasing "genetic information" and therefore argues for "intelligent design" is absolutely ridiculous. It is merely another version of the "complexity" argument: that life is too complex to be accidental."

No, it's actually not a complexity issue. It's a genetic issue, the fact that mutations can not increase DNA information. In fact, he never addresses this point in the whole site.

"It takes very little change in a few genes to produce a new species. The DNA content of a human and of a chimpanzee cell are 99% alike."

Two false facts in as many sentences. First of all, it takes huge amounts of change for a new species to arise. Second, the DNA content of us and chimps is not 99%. It's less than 95%.

"Humans have somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 genes in every cell and bacteria perhaps a few hundred. In every human cell (billions upon billions of them) there are hundreds, if not thousands, of mitochondria, which contain both DNA and RNA, producing thousands of different kinds of enzymes and other proteins. Mitochondria, it is thought, were derived from bacteria incorporated accidentally into unicellular animals. Mitochondrial DNA is different from nuclear DNA, but both are genetic information."

This sounds like an argument for creation!! Where was he going with this? All this genetic information, but he didn't say were it came from, or how it could increase genetic information in the organism. He is just spouting irrelevant facts.

"When bits or pieces of people are cultured for organisms the bacteria found are tested for sensitivity to antibiotics because bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics, even as the patient is being treated. That resistance is an evolutionary adaptation."

Yes, it is adaption. I do not deny that organisms adapt to their enviroment, but that adaption has never been shown (just the opposite) to turn into a 'higher' life form.

This site is not a well thought out argument against the increasing complexity problem. It is an oppurtunity to bash creationists. I counted at least five remarks about creationists, and that is only one page! This fellow is not engaging in a scientific attempt to do anything.


-------
Sam, KC2GWX
 


Posts: 101 | Posted: 10:09 AM on November 24, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Please cite your sources. The chimp DNA one and the one that says huge amounts of gene changes are needed for new species.
I did the gene one for you. We may only have 95% in common, which I'm sure in creationist speak means we have less than 95%.

John Pickrell
for National Geographic News
September 24, 2002

As for my other questions you've been ignoring...you probably did not read the Blind Watchmaker. You probably don't have a clear idea of the argument Hawkins makes. You do, on the otherhand, know what your religion says about Hawkins.

Please do me a favor and define increasing information. I think it is a term, like micro and macro evolution, that is generally only in creationist literature.

(Edited by beavischrist 11/24/2002 at 1:18 PM).
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:09 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

everytime that one of your evolutionist arguments are rebuked, you tell us to read The Blind Watchmaker. why dont you come up with a new defense of your argument instead of a stupid book?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:20 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Which of my arguments was "debunked"? You may not understand that science takes time because you are used to flipping pages for answers, but as technology improves and as more research is done, more answers come out and old answers are reworked.

It could be any book, the particular one is not the point. I take issue with how he made it seem like he had an idea of what he was arguing against when it seems he did not.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 1:24 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

first of all i said "rebuke" not "debunk", there is a big difference. second of all, i just dont think a good defense of your argument is to tell us to read a book. thats all


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:56 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Rebuked, you're right. The problem with this type of argument is we are not educated in the fields that we're arguing about. In order to make this less of a link war I propose we all exchange arguments in our own words and cite sources.
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 4:46 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
Cool-Hand-Dave

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

this may sound dumb, but what's a bomardier beetle?  i really have no clue.  excuse me for my lack of knowledge in this area


-------
Cool Hand Dave
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 5:10 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
beavischrist

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since it's not really an argument...
http://www.animalfact.com/article1008.html
 


Posts: 193 | Posted: 5:32 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that link that u gave is a biased website. for unbiased information on the bomardier beetle, click on this link:
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creation_bombardier_beetle.HTM



-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:17 PM on November 24, 2002 | IP
elapid

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How could the Bombardier Beetle have evolved? It would have blown itself up in the process of being evolved. What if it accidentally mixed the enzymes it contains in one chamber with the compounds (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones) in the other chamber? What happens? The beetle has blown itself up. Evolution says that you will lose it if you're not using it, so how do you use it if it is not in a compete and fully functional form to begin with? If it doesn't have all its parts in the beginning it cannot defend itself right away and, therefore, may die (possibly from its own explosion)  before it can evolve the necessary parts to keep it alive. And if it did blow up how did it get here? I know you'll say "natural selection' or 'beneficial mutations' and 'time.' To prevent its own destruction the beetle manufactures a chemical called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with the reactive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the expulsion of hot, burning liquid and gases to discourage its enemies. It has no protection because it has no solution to exploit to protect itself. Another dead beetle and dead bugs cannot evolve the chemical needed to release the protective reaction, which is call the anti-inhibitor. When that is added to the other chemicals an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle can defend itself. If the explosion came all at once the beetle would blow itself up and we'd have another dead beetle. Problem solved:  Actually, the explosion is several individual 'pops' but they happen so fast and close together that they sound like one 'pop' to the human ear. If it was just one big POP, it would be like lighting the after-burners on a jet engine and the diminutive creature would blow itself out of the picture but with the sequential pops it can hang on with its little legs and stay in place and defend itself! INCREDIBLE! So you say this is an example of  the "impersonal, plus time, plus chance" kind of deal. I know it is an example of a special, intricate creation by a God who is intimately involved with his creatures.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 3:23 PM on January 31, 2003 | IP
Sarah2006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution says that you will lose it if you're not using it, so how do you use it if it is not in a compete and fully functional form to begin with?


No, you only lose it if it hurts your ability to survive.  If it has no effect on whether you live or die, or whether you survive better than others than the trait won't die out.  We don't use our appendices, but there still their..why?  because we ave surgeons who remove appendices which become enlarged and would kill someone.  So having an appendix neither helps nor hurts our surivival, so it's still there.  

Sarah

 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 4:48 PM on February 1, 2003 | IP
CrimsonWeltall

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It has been shown that the 2 chemicals in question will NOT explode spontaneously.

Secondly, organisms do not necessarily lose useless or even negative components (the appendix, for example).
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 01:36 AM on February 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bombardier Beetle


First of all there is no possible way that these type of beetles could have formed by evolution,
it doesnt matter how you try to make it up.

Secondly evolution is based entirely on itself, (everything in evolution is based on things that have not been proven [only theory], as a matter of fact have been dis-proven)

Thirdly- there are so many things that disprove evolution its not even funny.

Last of all - if you believe in evolution, you basically believe we all evolved from one thing (the big bang theory - dust colliding together and whatnot then exploding - creating the universe around us today.) thats the brainwash version, to put it simply... a rock!

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:14 PM on November 13, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First of all there is no possible way that these type of beetles could have formed by evolution,
it doesnt matter how you try to make it up."

Completely wrong.  There are many possible ways for the bombadier beetle to have evolved,  there is no evidence that it didn't.  It's unique defense method is no problem for evolution.

"Secondly evolution is based entirely on itself, (everything in evolution is based on things that have not been proven [only theory], as a matter of fact have been dis-proven)"

No it's not.  Please learn a little about the theory of evolution, you obviously know absolutely nothing about it.  200 years ago science believed the Genesis creation account, young earth, animals created discretely and unchanging.  But then christian geologists studying the earth realized that a young earth was clearly impossible and there never was a world wide flood.  Darwin showed that life did adapt to it's environment.  Since then all the evidence we've uncovered has reinforced this view.  The creationist model was overturned because the evidence against it was overwhelming.  So no, evolution isn't based entirely on itself, it's based on reality, unlike your worldview.  Evolution is a fact, we see it in action and we understand some of the mechanisms that drive it.

"Thirdly- there are so many things that disprove evolution its not even funny."
There is nothing in reality that disproves evolution, I dare you to give any example that falsifies the theory of evolution.

"Last of all - if you believe in evolution, you basically believe we all evolved from one thing (the big bang theory - dust colliding together and whatnot then exploding - creating the universe around us today.) thats the brainwash version, to put it simply... a rock!"

Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, you can't even keep your theories straight!  Once again, learn what your argueing against or you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:41 AM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm, science shows that man was created from dust and you want to deny it?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:45 AM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Hmmm, science shows that man was created from dust and you want to deny it?"

Unless you're being confusingly metaphorical, science doesn't say man was created from dust...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:35 PM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just metaphorical I suppose. :-)

MadSci Network

And, of course, the explosion of stars produces a dusty cosmos which, as Carl Sagan so aptly put it, means that you and I and everything around us  is made of star dust! Hope this answers your question.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:42 PM on November 14, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all - Evolution is NOT fact.
all it is, is a religion.

"So no, evolution isn't based entirely on itself, it's based on reality, unlike your worldview.  Evolution is a fact, we see it in action and we understand some of the mechanisms that drive it."

... I would like to know how it is based on reality and how it is "Fact".




Second of all - then how do you think the universe was created?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:02 PM on November 17, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"First of all - Evolution is NOT fact.
all it is, is a religion."


No, we see evolution happening today, we see new species arising, we see beneficial mutations occurring, we see transitional organisms, both alive today and in the fossil record, we can trace lineages of organisms that are chronologically accurate.  Evolution is indeed, a fact.  You can claim anything you want but you are proven wrong by science.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:07 PM on November 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is not a religion. Evolution is the product of the rising spirit of the "anti-christ attempting to do anything and everything to disprove and distort the Truth of the Resurrected King. Jesus the Christ is coming soon, but before Hios second coming we must see the incarnation of satans last stand rise out of the revised EU (European Union). Wait, do you mean to tell me that the Bible, with its last book being written by the Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos in 96 AD, could have fortold thousands of years ahead of time about the European Union which hadn't exited until just recently?    THE ANSWER: YES, the Bible fortold this and so, so much more. It is so Important to make a decision to follow Jesus with our whole heart now, we are not promised tomorrow. And if we do wait, what makes us think we will make a decision tomorrow and not just try to wait another day? WE NEED TO GET RIGHT WITH GOD NOW!


Note: 1 John 4     "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (2)   By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, (3)   and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the anti-christ, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

  2 Thessalonians 2

    (3)   Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed (the antichrist), the son of perdition, (4)   who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himjself that he is God...
....(9)   The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, (10)    and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  

 What will people be like in the last days before Jesus comes back??

..."But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power."      

     But if we follow Jesus, the Son of God, we will surely live and not die!!! Look what Jesus said, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."            



               --Benjamin             bensaved2001@hotmail.com                      
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 09:51 AM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The anti-evolution anti-science crowd going under the guise of "Christians" who spread lies in the name of God are false prophets.

Jer 23:30-32

23:30  Therefore, behold, I [am] against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

23:31 Behold, I [am] against the prophets, saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith.

23:32 Behold, I [am] against them that prophesy false dreams, saith the LORD, and do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their lightness; yet I sent them not, nor commanded them: therefore they shall not profit this people at all, saith the LORD.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:52 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, we see evolution happening today, we see new species arising, we see beneficial mutations occurring, we see transitional organisms, both alive today and in the fossil record, we can trace lineages of organisms that are chronologically accurate.  Evolution is indeed, a fact.  You can claim anything you want but you are proven wrong by science.


... I would like you to give some examples of this.


... and you still didn't answer my second question. - How do you think the universe was created?

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:53 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

New plant species originates in England


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 4:18 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Living transitionals
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 5:41 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is simply a lie


Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

“If you took all the carbon in the universe and put it on the face of the earth, allowed it to chemically react at the most rapid rate possible, and left it for a billion years, the odds of creating just one functional protein molecule would be one chance in a 10 with 60 zeros after it. In other words, the odds for all practical purposes are zero. That’s why even though some people who aren’t educated in [molecular science and DNA research] still believe life emerged by chance.


+ - + - +

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:41 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"... I would like you to give some examples of this."

Examples of speciation?  The Faeroe Island mouse, nylon eating bacteria, cichlids, for three.  And a previous poster mentioned living transitionals, examples would be the platypus or the lungfish and then there are all kinds of transitionals in the fossil record.

"... and you still didn't answer my second question. - How do you think the universe was created?"

And this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  But since you asked, I think the universe was formed by natural phenomenon that we do not yet understand but are studying.  Just because we don't yet know the answer doesn't mean God did it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:46 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Examples of speciation?  The Faeroe Island mouse, nylon eating bacteria, cichlids, for three.  And a previous poster mentioned living transitionals, examples would be the platypus or the lungfish and then there are all kinds of transitionals in the fossil record.

How does this prove evolution???...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:54 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"How does this prove evolution???..."

They are examples of evolution happening in our life time!  The Faeroe island mouse, it was moved to a new environment and adapted to this new environment, it is now a new species, different from the parent species, this is evolution. Nylon eating bacteria, a mutation in the bacteria's genetic structure allowed it to metabolize nylon, it could now exploit a new niche, this strain of bacteria thrived, the beneficial mutation was passed on and a new species of bacteria was formed.  Nylon did not exist before the 1940's so this abilitiy to digest it could not have been all ready in the bacteria's genetic structure, lieing dormant.  This is evolution!  
The transitional species supports the theory of evolution because this is exactly what evolution predicts we would see in nature.

Oh, and science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, so nothing is ever proved 100%, the theory of evolution is the best explaination for how life evolves.  But life does evolve, the examples I've listed show this to be true, so while the theory of evolution is just that, a solid theory that explains all the evidence we see in regards to the diversity of life on our planet with no serious rivals, it's a fact that life does evolve.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:26 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

NO, you seem to be confused...
that is called "adaption" not "evolution"

and besides there are 2 different types of evolution (main types.)...

"Macro" and "Micro"

Microevolution - involves things adapting, ex: an organism adapting to its surroundings - thus causing change, BUT it does not change the species into a whole new species only small changes. ex: different types of dogs... but all come from a common ancestor, a DOG.
ex-2: Roses - all different types of roses, but all have a common ancestor, a ROSE.

Macroevolution - species changing into somthing totally different. ex: fish changing into a land dwelling creauture.
ex-2: ape changing into human - or anything like the 2 mentioned above.


Micro is true
Macro is NOT...

and many people try to prove Macro evolution by explaining Micro evolution...

... evolution is a religion, it cannot be proven, its somthing you "believe" in, and it is based on all previous assumptions that it is true.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:49 PM on November 18, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, you're confused, evolution is adaptation.  It's called natrual selection.  Evolution is small, incremental changes that accumulate to form large changes.  There is essentially no difference between macro and micro, macro is just an accumulation of micro changes.  The only people who really even use the terms micro and macro with evolution are creationists who don't know what they are talking about.  
If what you claim is true, what is the barrier that prevents micro evolutionary changes from accumulating and becoming macro evolutionary changes?
If what you claim is true, why do we see so many transitional species poised between different classes of organisms?  The platypus is clearly a transitional animal between mammals and reptiles, it has mammilian endothermy, milk glands, and hair, yet it doesn't have the breasts of true mammals, it has a single exit point from it's body, the cloaca like a reptile, it lays eggs like a reptile and the male has poison like a reptile.  What about the lungfish?  Now why would it have both gills and lungs unless it was transitional between amphibians and fish?  How does your theory explain it, because it is just what evolution predicts will happen.  And you totally ignore the overwhelming fossil evidence.  We have very detailed lineages going from reptile to mammal, the lineage from therapod dinosaur to true bird is begining to look conclusive.  Even the history of hominids leading up to man supports evolution.  This is the current state of our understanding based on all the facts, you have yet to show even one iota of evidence that refutes it.
So your inane insistance that evolution is a religion is shown, once again, to be false.  No matter how desperately you wish it were so, evolution is fully supported by all the evidence, and creationism is falsified.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:04 AM on November 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, that's my post, don't know why it logged me as guest...

                                               Demon38
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:06 AM on November 19, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.