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
     Deadly Dragons
       Biologists debate

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've always been facinated with Komodo Dragons.  Until now I've went along with the idea that part of their strategy in bringing down prey was to inflict a lethal bacterial laced bite to their victims with their serrated teeth.  Those prey that they didn't kill outright, they just waited for the victim to die of infection/injury.

Now some researchers have presented evidence that the dragon actually has some venomous glands in which it inflicts its victims - causing a rapid drop in blood pressure (leading to shock), and a protein that prevents blood from clotting (leading the victim to bleed to death).  

Debate over Dragon Venom

While some biologist reviewing the findings agree that venom glands make a compelling case for hunting strategy, not all biologists agree with the conclusions of the researchers.

I found this debate interesting because it illustrates an important process in peer review.  Skeptics do play an important role in the process.  They raise questions and encourage further research that can lead to more conclusive answers - one way or another.

Rational and constructive skepticism is vital in the scientific process.  

So what's wrong with the skeptics that Creatists present to the theory of evolution?  Anyone  can say that they're skeptical about something, but can they present compelling evidence that support their skepticism?

The skepticism that Creationists present lack quality, integrity, and a valid scientific alternative.  

Another fatal flaw is that Creationists just plain ignore the coherent and consistent evidence supporting evolution that exists across many scientific fields.  

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:19 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great post, orion!

So they might have venom???
Woah... I think i would never have guessed that... I mean, the infectious bite seemed to be enough.

I share your fascination. They are truly awesome.

I don't think a creationist has ever mentioned komodo dragons. They are to vicious to have been designed by their loving god, but they can't deny it either, so they hush.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:14 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And how about taking them on the Ark?  And what about the placement of various species located in only certain places around the world - Komodo Dragons on their island, New World monkeys in South America, Kangaroos in Australia, Polar bears in the Artic, Emperor  Penguins in Anartica, Jaguars in South America, Bison in North America, Tigers in Asia, Pandas in China, etc, etc, etc.  And then you have various species of plants and insects found in only certain places in the world.  Etc, etc, etc.  And fish too.  And the list goes on for millions of different species.   Noah was an incredibly industrious man, and a magician to boot.

Hey Wisp, how many animals and plants are found only in South America?  How about Argentina?  It's funny that the Bible doesn't mention them by name.  Actually, the Bible mentions very few specific species of animals.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:09 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's also funny that the ones that are not mentioned can mutate so heavily as to produce wild tigers and domestic cats from a couple of felines (i presume they were felines) just 4k years ago.
And without Evolution.

I wonder if the sloths had a hard time migrating from Mt. Ararat to South America...

Oh, yeah, perhaps they got there real fast, and became slow due to devolution.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:20 PM on May 19, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.