MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 5, 2003 23:38:37 GMT -5
Here's my extended explanation of the Bombardier Beetle, clipped from the dinosaurs thread. For those who don't know, I'm disproving (or rather, quoting someone ELSE, disproving) the ID/Creationist argument based on the Bombardier Beetle. If you want a better idea of what I'm quoting, I strongly urge you to scroll to the bottom. The link to the full article is there. Gish is wrong; a step-by-step evolution of the bombardier system is really not that hard to envision. The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.
Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]
Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])
Small inv@ginations (sorry about the odd spelling, but the forum keeps censoring me.) develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.
The inv@ginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])
A couple inv@ginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.
In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.
Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.
The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [Forsyth, 1970]
Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.
Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.
Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.
More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [Eisner et al., 2000]
The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.
Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.
The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions. Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.[(Excerpted from " Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design" by Mark Isaak, Copyright © 1997-2003, talkorigens.org. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html)
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 8, 2003 13:37:12 GMT -5
Where do people stand on the issue of evolution v. creationism, and why?
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 13, 2003 1:13:44 GMT -5
I stand quite firmly on the Bible, there is no surer place to stand. To be honest there can only be one interpretation of Genesis I, and that is a literal six days.
The reason for this comes in two parts, firstly the hebrew word and context used in the creation account is ONLY used in a 24 hour sense in the rest of the Bible. Secondly in Exodus 20 when God says "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day," It is setting up a reason for keeping the Sabbath day, because God worked six days and rested, a model for us."
For those who believe that day means long periods of time I must ask "why have you traded the Biblical truth for secular lies?"
The chances of the FIRST part of evolution are ten to the power of 3000 or so, not to mention the next step which is equally impossible. Mathematically Scientist say that anything with a chance of one in ten to the power of fifty or greater is IMPOSSIBLE. so from the horses mouth evolution is impossible.
The problem with evolution (other than it goes against the Bible) is that it need to add information from making mistakes. basically evolution rolls a dice and hopes for a six. However it needs to roll six die and get 50,000 sixes, in ONE roll, impossible, you cant add information.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Dec 13, 2003 1:17:33 GMT -5
I stand quite firmly on the Bible, there is no surer place to stand. To be honest there can only be one interpretation of Genesis I, and that is a literal six days. The reason for this comes in two parts, firstly the hebrew word and context used in the creation account is ONLY used in a 24 hour sense in the rest of the Bible. Not quite accurate. According to Answers in Genesis, yom ("day" in Hebrew) "can have a number of different meanings dependant upon context. In fact, any word can have two or more meanings dependant upon context. So the Hebrew word day can mean time, it can mean year, it can mean an ordinary day, as well as a number of other definitions. However, the major use of the Hebrew word for day is to mean a literal 24-hour day." The problem with evolution (other than it goes against the Bible) is that it need to add information from making mistakes. basically evolution rolls a dice and hopes for a six. However it needs to roll six die and get 50,000 sixes, in ONE roll, impossible, you cant add information. It would be statistically impossible, yes, without any help from a Supreme Being. For the record, I am a six-day Creationist, but, as David Kuntz stated in the dinosaur thread, "I don't believe that people who believe that God created the world 6 billion years ago do not believe the Bible."
|
|
|
Post by ToriTelfer on Dec 13, 2003 10:31:42 GMT -5
For those who believe that day means long periods of time I must ask "why have you traded the Biblical truth for secular lies?" yah! i'm with Race! macroevolution? it can barely be called a hypothesis! anyone who studies evolution at ALL can't help being disgusted, really, at how much of it is outright lies. And what's not lies is random unproven guesses. But I don't really know why we have this thread....i doubt anyone here is an evolutionist.....
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Dec 13, 2003 11:39:14 GMT -5
yah! i'm with Race! macroevolution? it can barely be called a hypothesis! anyone who studies evolution at ALL can't help being disgusted, really, at how much of it is outright lies. And what's not lies is random unproven guesses. But I don't really know why we have this thread....i doubt anyone here is an evolutionist..... Race, I've never heard of anyone who doesn't believe that Dinosaurs exist. Do you have a link or something to provide an example? Personally, I'm a theistic evolutionist, (NO. IT IS NOT A CONTRADICTION OF TERMS.) and I've never seen anything to say that dinosaurs never existed. Yes, we have at least one evolutionist in our ranks.
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 13, 2003 21:06:19 GMT -5
Yes, in fact, I've been in enough evolution vs. creation debates in my life that I hardly participate in them anymore... esspecially on message boards. When I saw this thread, posted by Matt, I thought, "oh brother" and hoped it would die. All we need is a big evolution vs. creation debate in CHARGE. People feel more strongly about this issue then theological issues, faith, church, or even the civil war!! Ok, so maybe I exaturate somewhat... but they put it on par with those things... can we please, please, please... just have an intelctual argument without getting rude and mean?? I guess I'll participate, if time allows... I feel somewhat strange debating my own debate parter!! Seeing as too, that ya'll are on my side... that comforts me. I am a six day creationst. I believe the Bible is literal. If you want to know more about what I believe about the Bible, go see my God Wrote a Book topic. His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Dec 14, 2003 17:24:34 GMT -5
I apologize for my comments about the hebrew word yom, David is absolutely correct, however the context gives a pretty clear indication that it is a six day literal.
Also I believe that the Exodus 20 passage is pretty solid proof it is six day literal.
I am not saying that God couldn't have created through evolution. But he didn't and that is the point.
I believe that to understand an issue you have to ask certain questions about it.
For evolution my questions are: why was it started? if God had used evolution what does that show us about him? what does creation show about God?
Firstly evolution is primarily a way to take God (and thereby responsiblity) out of the equation. The original evolutionists were humanists, and didn't like the idea of spiritual consequences, and so took God out.
I want to be careful how I answer the second and third questions, so I will write again on it in a later post.
I would like to clarify my earlier statements, evolutionists who are Christians are still Christians nonetheless, it is just (in my mind) harder to have a Biblical foundation for other doctrines if you are evolutionists, but if there are any specific questions on this that I can answer/clarify my position please let me know.
|
|
HeatherZupancic
CHARG(E)ing up
Exploration is not a choice, really; it's an imperative.
Posts: 75
|
Post by HeatherZupancic on Dec 14, 2003 17:44:51 GMT -5
I am a creationist and I believe in the "young earth theory"....however, I do not condemn people who believe in the "old earth theory". There is evidence in the Bible for both sides. Unfortunately, I have not been able to read everything that's out there . I believe that before you come up with a definite conclusion you should review all the Biblical facts and scientific theories.
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 15, 2003 0:43:12 GMT -5
I apologize for my comments about the hebrew word yom, David is absolutely correct, however the context gives a pretty clear indication that it is a six day literal. Also I believe that the Exodus 20 passage is pretty solid proof it is six day literal. Race, you are totally fine. I was just giving a pre-warning to everybody.... because as I said, people can get emotional with these debates. Also, when the passage says, "God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day." (Genesis 1:5) One argument I like to use, is, if the "day" means 1,000 years, did God work for 6,000 years and then rest for a 1,000 years?? And if that same word "yom" or "day" is used in Exdous, in refrence to Genesis 1, does God mean we should work for 6,000 years, and then rest for 1,000 years?? Genesis is a historical document. His Servant, Jason
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 15, 2003 12:39:35 GMT -5
Ok. Looks like I'm alone on this again. 'T's ok. I'm used to it. Anymore, I rather enjoy it . First, one misconception to clear up: Abiogenesis is not Evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory that the first life came from non-living matter. (This is a pretty primitive explanation of abiogenesis, and likely wrong. I don't spend much time studying it so I don't really know the arguments around it.) Evolution theorizes that life evolves and changes over time, it makes no postulations about how the first life came into being. Could you please define what the "first part" of evolution is? And could you please give the source for your numbers? Strong words. Wrong too. Standing firmly on a literal translation of Genesis is a very precarious position indeed, because there are two creation accounts in Genesis. Chapter 1 describes the earth being formed in 6 days, with man as the crowning achievement of God's creation. Chapter 2, however describes man being formed right after the creation of the barren earth, followed by all other living things. It gives no timeline. So which of the two are correct? How so? How does Evolution take God and responsibility out of the equation? If God exists, and the soul exists, then there is culpability. On you assertation regarding the first evolutionists, ould you show evidence for this? The first evolutionists were a fractious bunch, and their opinions on God ran the gamut. Regardless, even if they were all total atheists, that would not call into question their theory, it would call into question the conclusions they made based on it. Also, how about some of the old-earth creationists get in on this? It'd be interesting to get their view into the mix, and I know there's at least one out there. Well Mary???
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 15, 2003 15:19:32 GMT -5
Why I do NOT Accept the Evolution Theory
(1.) Barricade – The Missing Link. If life truly evolved from slime, then where pray tell are the transitional forms (one species evolving into another)? Scientists are constantly trying to find the “missing link” between man and ape. And it is certain that scientists have yet to find one. Oh sure they have found many of what they thought was a “missing link” but they soon find out that is what a hoax or that they were mistaken. Interestingly enough, if you think about it, if things have been evolving for millions and millions of years, then you wouldn’t expect to find just one, two, or three missing links, you’d expect to find a whole army of them! Darwin himself saw this difficulty and writes: “Why, if species descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitionary forms? As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?” Today the missing link is still very much missing. This is a major road block for evolutionists.
(2.) Barricade – The co-existence of Types. Not only do we not find any missing link(s) but... It is now a well known fact that some animals that supposedly descended one from another have actually lived side by side! Man and apes have living side by side from the earliest trace of any of them. Professor Pfaff (University of Erlangen) says, “The most ancient man known to us is not essentially different from the man now living.” Why on earth do we find ancient men that look like they do today buried in rock layers along side apes that are suppose to be millions of years old? So the question is did we evolve from apes? Well, let me know as soon as you find some evidence for such an evolution. In the mean time, I have more important things to do...
(3.) Barricade – The Desperate attempts of Evolutionists to crush all opposition to their doctrine. It is interesting that if anyone tries to bring up any opposition to the theory of evolution they are crushed under criticism. The Cobb County, Georgia school board voted unanimously on August 22, 2002 to consider a pluralistic approach to the origin of the human race, rather than the mandated theory of evolution. The board says the district “believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of species.” Immediately, pro-evolution forces jumped from their trees and started behaving as if someone had stolen their bananas. Apparently, academic freedom is for other subjects. Dr. Thomas Dwight (Harvard University) said this, “The tyranny in the matter of evolution is overwhelming to a degree of which the outsider has no idea. Not only does it influence our manner of thinking (as I confess it does with me), but there is opposition as in the days of “terror”! How very few of the leaders in the field of science dare to tell the truth as to state of their own minds! How many of them feel themselves forced in public to do lip service to a cult that they do not believe in!” Why this frantic, mad, and insane attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with the evolutionary hypothesis? There is an answer to this question by a recognized authority: "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." - John 3:20 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," - Romans 1:18
What do evolutionists fear? If scientific evidence for creation is academically unsound and outrageously untrue, why not present the evidence and allow us to decide which view makes more sense?
“If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, the whole evolution of Man was accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents — the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and the astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts — i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy — are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents.” -C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: Wim. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), p. 52-53
(4.) Barricade – Mutations an Explanation for Evolution? You might very well run into someone who will try to explain evolution by mutations that we see. Mutations are little changes that we see minor variations in species. It should be noted that the minor little changes that we see are decrease in information, not increases, like major evolution would need. Besides for major evolution to take place you would need major changes and increases of information, not decreases. It is a fact that 99.9 % of all mutations are harmful or even lethal. I’m sorry but mutations just aren’t a plausible explanation for evolution.
(5.) Barricade – Fossil Record One thing that many people don’t know is that the fossil record does NOT support evolution. On the contrary, it supports a Biblical flood. For instance what would you expect to find if there was world-wide flood as the Bible describes?? I guess I’d expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layer, laid down by water all over the earth. But evolutionists say there was no flood, where’s the evidence of a flood... all I see is billions of dead things buried in rock layer, laid down by water all over the earth. Anyway, God’s word is so true isn’t it? The fossil record shows no signs of evolution. The fossil record is an incomplete record as far as evolution is concerned. There are many gaps. For one there are no transitional forms. There is no evidence (in the fossil record) of a fish turning into an amphibian or an amphibian into a reptile, or a reptile turning into a bird or mammal. Darwin thought that eventually the fossil record would provide transitional forms. But it has not, and the missing links are still very much missing. By the way, just for the record... If there was no flood, why do we find sea creatures from the bottom of the ocean fossilized at the top of mountains???
(6.) Barricade – The Law of Biogenesis and the Cell Principle – The Question of Life Itself. Cell Principle: All living things are composed of living units called cells and of cell products and that all cells come from pre-existing cells. The Law of Biogenesis: Living things can only come from other living things. Where and how did life originate? For this question evolution has no answer; and it does not even pretend to have an answer. The law of biogenesis states that living things can only come from other living things. Thus we have an endless cycle of life that cannot be bridged by any way of thought or theory to explain a beginning. Life is here, and there is no explanation to how it got here.
“We take the side of science in spite of patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-initiated. Moreover; that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door” -Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31
(7.) – Conclusion – Why I accept the Genesis Record Therefore, if evolution cannot be proven true, then we should look for something different. It is disgraceful the way many evolutionists try to crush opposition to their theory. Indeed, if they were really trying to find the truth, it would be an open world of non-opposed opinions about the origins of the earth. In fact, the only reason many learned men believe in evolution is because they do not want to consider the only other option available - that we were designed by a Creator, God. The rest of the population assumes evolution is science (which it is not, because it cannot be tested) and that scientists have proven evolution (which they have not). We have no excuse not to believe in a God who created the universe with His own hands. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they (human beings/people) are without excuse." - Romans 1:20
His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by JasonPensa on Dec 15, 2003 15:26:16 GMT -5
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3 Most people have the wrong idea of what the creation/evolution question is all about. They don't understand the real issues involved and think that evolution is a scientific theory. Evolution, however, is not a scientific theory, it is a belief system about the past. We don't have the past, we only have the present! Evolution attacks the foundation of the Christian faith: Creation. Creation is also a belief about the past which describes the way in which the evidence in the present came to be. The creation story is the account of the only One who actually claims to have been there, in the beginning. Evolutionists’ know that if they can explain away, “In the beginning, God created” then they can reject God. Most importantly evolution is an attack on God Himself. If human life just simply evolved from slime, then there is no reason to believe that there is a God, and there is no need for Him. As we look around the world today, we see things happening which are disturbing and alarming to us as Christians, because we are largely unable to understand why they are happening. We see more and more marriages breaking up, people not bothering about marriage, an increase in homosexuality, families not functioning in the way they used to. There is a great increase in disrespect for authority, and lawlessness is ever on the rise. We may wonder, why the suicide rate going up in our country and why such lawlessness is so rampant in our society. Well, tell a kid that his great, great, great, great, great grandpa is a monkey... what kind of self esteem value is that? Just tell him that he evolved from non-living matter, and he is here by a random process of chance. Where is law then? It has no place. If I am here by accident, then I can (and will) do whatever I please. There is no being accountable to some god way out there. The Biblical doctrine of origins, as contained in the book of Genesis, is foundation to all other doctrines of Scripture. Refute or undermine in any way the Biblical doctrine of origins, and the rest of the Bible is undermined. For instance, sin, death, suffering, marriage, family, government, a fallen man kind etc. are all founded in the book of Genesis. So many Christians try to explain evolution into their faith in God. They try to fit millions of years with the Bible, so they just add on millions of years of death blood shed before the fall of man-kind. What is wrong with that picture? Death and sin was the curse because of Adam’s rebellion. So how could there be death before Adam’s rebellion? How could death be as God said, “Very good”? So evolution and God don’t mix and you can’t add evolution to the Bible. period. May I ask you... what dear binding evidence in our world have we found, what logical process exsits, by which we must make evolution fit into the Bible?? By what creed are we forced with such loyality to take the word of mere mortal man kind over the word of an ultmighty, all-knowing GOD of the universe who cannot lie??
The truly wise man is he who believes the Bible against the opinions of any man. If the Bible says one thing, and any body of men says another, the wise man will decide, “This book is the Word of Him Who cannot lie.” His Servant, Jason
|
|
|
Post by DavidDinsmore on Dec 15, 2003 18:03:03 GMT -5
I have studied the subject a little bit and have been exposed to both sides of the issue. I agree with Jason. The physical evidence just won't fit Evolution and when you try to put the Bible in there it just doesn't work. Many brilliant minds have developed the Evolutionary Theory and it's the best explanation for the present state of the universe if the God of the Bible is rejected. However, from what I've see, read, and heard only the Bible can fit and explain all the facts.
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Dec 15, 2003 22:52:34 GMT -5
As to life originating from slime, please read what I posted about abiogenesis. Evolution does not postulate that life evolved from slime. This reveals a major underlying misconception about evolution. We HAVE found legions of transitional fossils. Each and every fossil is a transitional fossil. NOT every link between man and ape has been found to be a hoax or a case of mistaken identity either. Much noise is made about piltdown man, nebraska man, and one other, whose name escapes me. These were all hoaxes or mistakes. No attention is paid to the many other examples of homo habilis and homo erectus, however. I would urge you to read this: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#sangiran17Every time a transitional form is discovered, creationists raise the bar. They demand a NEW transitional fossil to go between the human and the intermediate. If such a skull is found, yet ANOTHER one is demanded, and so on. The vast, vast majority of living organisms were never fossilized, which is a good thing, because otherwise we'd be drowning in chalk. Could you please show me evidence for this? You can't just make assertations and then not back them up with one specific instance of this happening. Uuuuuum, this isn't a barricade to the truth evolutionary theory at all, Jason. Again, please see my post on abiogenesis above. This is just dead wrong. Mutations are NOT always a decrease in information, they are change from the norm, which can take several forms, including an omission. What is more, it is NOT a fact that 99.9% of mutations are harmful. Most are neutral, or helpful or harmful depending on the environment. Could you please show the scientific evidence that proves that mutations are always decreases in information and are always harmful? read this, it's a very good explanation of why mutations are not always harmful, as well as a good explanation of what a mutation is and what it entails. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2I'll finish this in a second post, since the first one has become too long.
|
|