Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

[SkyWriting]

Not by creationist scholars! Check out the bombardier beetle, for example.

Ok I did. Thanks Chris.

The facts are even more incredible than the Creationist literature I have read from ICR. Creationists actually understate the complexity and unlikely biology of a beetle that combines two chemicals to create a jet engine style of explosion and direct the scalding exhaust out it's butt with pinpoint accuracy.

Spray aiming in the bombardier beetle: Photographic evidence

Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus)

 

[Split Rock]

Ok I did. Thanks Chris.

The facts are even more incredible than the Creationist literature I have read from ICR. Creationists actually understate the complexity and unlikely biology of a beetle that combines two chemicals to create a jet engine style of explosion and direct the scalding exhaust out it's butt with pinpoint accuracy.

Spray aiming in the bombardier beetle: Photographic evidence

Spray mechanism of the most primitive bombardier beetle (Metrius contractus)

The point was the falsehood that putting the two ingredients together would cause them to explode, thus the need for a mysterious "inhibitor" to evolve, proving GODDIDIT. In any case, there are all kinds of predecessors in related species.

 

[SkyWriting]

But it is a prediction.
The belief is in the expansion. Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation of that expansion. But even without the theory there is still the expansion.

It's kind of the other way around. The big bang theory imagined all of matter and energy from one singular cell phone.....I mean...one singular point.

But the cosmos was later deemed to be bigger than the hypothetical scenario allowed. Meaning, if matter traveled at the speed of light from one point, the cosmos would be smaller than we measure it to be.

So they has to throw in the theory of expansion of space to account for the size of the cosmos. But they have done this without a clue as to what expansion is. They just assume it IS because it fits the observations best.

Similarly they've invented dark matter and dark energy as something that, if it exists, would help explain the unexplainable.

 

[chris4243]

But it is a prediction.

So you say. To me, it just sounds like God taking credit for creating the stars and sky.

The belief is in the expansion. Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation of that expansion. But even without the theory there is still the expansion.

The Big Bang theory has the formula for the expansion, and there's no way you could confuse it as being metaphorical or bragging rather than a detailed, numerical, very high precision prediction of the amount of redshift and star density (which we translate to expansion).

They sure do. The stars are ordered:

“Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.” (Isa 40:26).

So you're saying the Bible is falsified, because what you quoted is clearly a prediction that the stars go somewhere until God calls them out one by one, and that none of them is missing. Yet the fact is, they are there all along, all day long, except that some have gone missing.

What?

If the Bible tells us the earth is circular and scientists discovered that the earth is circular, then this scientific discovery can serve as confirmation of the biblical claim.

What if the Bible says that the Earth is a flat circle, with four corners, resting on pillars, with a foundation, whereas science says it is not a circle but a sphere?

If the Bible tells us that the universe was expanded by an undetectable force and scientists discovered that the universe is expanding by an undetectable force, then this scientific discovery can serve as confirmation of the biblical claim. God-energy did it.
If the “figurative speech” is scientifically accurate, then bring on the eggs.

Except it's not a confirmation, because the Bible didn't predict it. It could have meant many different things -- were the universe not expanding, it would not have shown that verse false. Ergo, that verse cannot have predicted that the universe is expanding.

 

[chris4243]

It's kind of the other way around. The big bang theory imagined all of matter and energy from one singular cell phone.....I mean...one singular point.

But the cosmos was later deemed to be bigger than the hypothetical scenario allowed. Meaning, if matter traveled at the speed of light from one point, the cosmos would be smaller than we measure it to be.

So they has to throw in the theory of expansion of space to account for the size of the cosmos. But they have done this without a clue as to what expansion is. They just assume it IS because it fits the observations best.

Similarly they've invented dark matter and dark energy as something that, if it exists, would help explain the unexplainable.

SkyWriting teaches Creationist history of astrophysics:
Hey guys, did you know that the Big Bang theory didn't originally have expansion? They just added that later, when the universe turned out to be bigger than a single point. Plus, that part about matching the experimental data to 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% accuracy was just a coincidence and/or I don't know about it.

 

[SkyWriting]

The point was the falsehood that putting the two ingredients together would cause them to explode, thus the need for a mysterious "inhibitor" to evolve, proving GODDIDIT. In any case, there are all kinds of predecessors in related species.

The fraud claim fails. Sorry, I don't see why a third chemical would make any difference. The idea of two or three chemicals exploding in a beetles rear end doesn't fit well with my old theory of slow tiny changes adding up to amount to something functional. So for millions of generations these 2 OR 3 chemicals just drooled out the beetles rear end until evolution finally got the explosion formula just right? Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting teaches Creationist history of astrophysics:
Hey guys, did you know that the Big Bang theory didn't originally have expansion? They just added that later, when the universe turned out to be bigger than a single point. Plus, that part about matching the experimental data to 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% accuracy was just a coincidence and/or I don't know about it.

I was unable to find your sources to check your accuracy numbers.
I was somewhat wrong.
Expansion was observed as a possibility first in 1910.
The "Big Bang" was theorized in 1931.
Later Inflation of space itself was tacked on in 1980
because the "Big Bang" was wrong.
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[chris4243]

The fraud claim fails. Sorry, I don't see why a third chemical would make any difference. The idea of two or three chemicals exploding in a beetles rear end doesn't fit well with my old theory of slow tiny changes adding up to amount to something functional. So for millions of generations these 2 OR 3 chemicals just drooled out the beetles rear end until evolution finally got the explosion formula just right? Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

4 chemicals, none of which are new. And there's no "explosion", it's an enzymatic reaction like almost every reaction occurring inside living things. And Dr Creationist was shown that the chemicals don't explode when mixed (they were mixed in front of him), admitted they don't explode when mixed, and then resumed lecturing about exploding beetles as if he had some very limited amnesia.

Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design

 

[RickG]

It's kind of the other way around. The big bang theory imagined all of matter and energy from one singular cell phone.....I mean...one singular point.

All the evidence points to that. Can you cite (scientific) evidence to the contrary?

But the cosmos was later deemed to be bigger than the hypothetical scenario allowed. Meaning, if matter traveled at the speed of light from one point, the cosmos would be smaller than we measure it to be.

Do you have a source for matter traveling at the speed of light? Citation please.

So they has to throw in the theory of expansion of space to account for the size of the cosmos. But they have done this without a clue as to what expansion is. They just assume it IS because it fits the observations best.

An observation is not an assumption.

Similarly they've invented dark matter and dark energy as something that, if it exists, would help explain the unexplainable.

The effects of Dark matter and energy have been physically observed. It's called "dark" because it hasn't been seen physically in the electromagnetic spectrum. A person can feel and observe the effects of "wind". Have you ever seen wind? Have you ever seen gravity? Understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

All the evidence points to that.

If all the evidence points to Big Bang -- what's this:

Look at this copy of Scientific American, folks!

Check it out!

Big Bang or Big Bounce?: New Theory on the Universe's Birth

Our universe may have started not with a big bang but with a big bouince - an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects.

By Martin Bojowald

Well, Martin Bojowald, whoever you are, when you know for sure, then I'll consider buying your propaganda.

I'm almost positive that your article will have "other points of view" in it --- embedded way down in the story somewhere.

You scientists get your stories straight --- then come and bore us with the details.

 

[SkyWriting]

The effects of Dark matter and energy have been physically observed.

Dark Matter Properties "Measured" for First Time, Study Says

 

[SkyWriting]

4 chemicals, none of which are new. And there's no "explosion", it's an enzymatic reaction like almost every reaction occurring inside living things. And Dr Creationist was shown that the chemicals don't explode when mixed (they were mixed in front of him), admitted they don't explode when mixed, and then resumed lecturing about exploding beetles as if he had some very limited amnesia.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Bull's-eye beetle

Clearly he was better informed than everyone else in the room. It sounds like his lecture was taken directly from peer reviewed publishings.

The spray of bombardier beetles contains p-benzoquinones (10), compounds well known for their irritant properties (11). A single bombardier beetle can discharge upward of 20 times before depleting its glands (6). The discharges are accompanied by audible detonations, and they have been shown to be potently deterrent to a number of predators, including ants (6, 12–15).
The spray of bombardier beetles is ejected at 100°C (13). This is because the quinones are generated explosively at the moment of ejection by the mixture of two sets of chemicals ordinarily stored separately in the glands.

Spray aiming in the bombardier beetle: Photographic evidence

Ploy and counterploy in predator-prey interactions: Orb-weaving spiders versus bombardier beetles

 

[Belk]

If there were some known cases of inaccuracy, you would have listed your favorites for us to clear up for you here.

If you are really interested I will join you in another thread. This does not seem the proper venue.

 

[chris4243]

Clearly he was better informed than everyone else in the room.

The spray of bombardier beetles contains p-benzoquinones (10), compounds well known for their irritant properties (11). A single bombardier beetle can discharge upward of 20 times before depleting its glands (6). The discharges are accompanied by audible detonations, and they have been shown to be potently deterrent to a number of predators, including ants (6, 12–15).
The spray of bombardier beetles is ejected at 100°C (13). This is because the quinones are generated explosively at the moment of ejection by the mixture of two sets of chemicals ordinarily stored separately in the glands.

Spray aiming in the bombardier beetle: Photographic evidence

Ploy and counterploy in predator-prey interactions: Orb-weaving spiders versus bombardier beetles

Incindentally, your quote disproves the creationist lie that mixing quinies and hydrogen peroxide would cause an explosion, or that there is any inhibitor which would be needed to prevent that.

Have a look here, for example:
The Collapse of Evolution - Scott M. Huse - Google Books

The neck of the giraffe: where ... - Francis Hitching - Google Books

The chemicals don't explode when mixed, creationists. They require enzymes to activate, enzymes common throughout biology.

 

[AV1611VET]

The chemicals don't explode when mixed, creationists.

Big deal.

Scientists need to worry about what will explode, not what won't.

 

[SkyWriting]

Incindentally, your quote disproves the creationist lie that mixing quinies and hydrogen peroxide would cause an explosion, or that there is any inhibitor which would be needed to prevent that. The chemicals don't explode when mixed, creationists. They require enzymes to activate, enzymes common throughout biology.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/422599.stm

Sorry, his description is apt. Your claim of fraud fails because his lecture mimics peer reviewed literature. I'm unable to check on the chemistry details as they are in German. Nothing published suggests that there is anything ORDINARY about the beetle. The female has 2 deflector shields to direct the scalding hot, explosive spray mixure, the male has one.

So for millions of generations these 2 OR 3 chemicals just drooled out the beetles rear end until evolution finally got the explosive formula just right? (I'm sticking to terms from the peer reviewed literature in spite of your objections)

Please explain what benefits these explosive compounds had before they resulted in the current defense system?

The bombardier beetle and its use of a pressure relief valve system to deliver a periodic pulsed spray.
Beheshti N, Mcintosh AC.
Bioinspir Biomim. 2007 Dec;2(4):57-64. Epub 2007 Nov 5.

PMID:18037729[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations


2.
43. Arthropod defense substances. Explosion chemistry of the bombardier beetle. VI. Chemistry of the smallest bombardier beetle Paussus favieri.
Schildknecht H, Koob K.
Naturwissenschaften. 1969 Jun;56(6):328. German. No abstract available.

PMID:5364297[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations



3.
[Arthropod defense substances. XLI. Explosion chemistry of bombardier beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae). IV. The fine structure of the pygidial defense glands of the bombardier beetle (Brachynus crepitans L.)].
Schnepf E, Wenneis W, Schildknecht H.
Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat. 1969;96(4):582-99. German. No abstract available.

PMID:4908502[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations



4.
[XXXIV. On arthropod protective substances. Explosion chemistry of the bombardier beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae). 3. Isolation and characterization of the explosion catalysts].
Schildknecht H, Maschwitz E, Maschwitz U.
Z Naturforsch B. 1968 Sep;23(9):1213-8. German. No abstract available.

PMID:4387200[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Related citations

 

[SkyWriting]

If you are really interested I will join you in another thread. This does not seem the proper venue.

Then I'm stumped as to why you mentioned it.
Did you fail to note the heading?
Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

 

[SkyWriting]

"What if the Bible says
that the Earth is a flat circle,with four corners"

"resting on pillars"

"with a foundation"

whereas science says it is not a circle but a sphere?

Gallery : The shape of Planet Earth

Science clearly says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
The Bible allows for this point of view as well.
Seattle Sunrise/Sunset Times

 

[Belk]

Then I'm stumped as to why you mentioned it.
Did you fail to note the heading?
Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Biblical Creation

Because it was a response to Jazer. Did you fail to note the forum?

 

[Jazer]

3. The track record of these belief systems to be incorrect when making assertions about the natural world.

If you want to go with a "track record" I would go with Moses. His Creation story is still around after 3500 years. The people who support Moses are all still alive. The people who reject Moses are long gone.

It's really not the Christians you have to worry about so much as the Muslims. They are getting tired of Americas filth and moral corruption and they plan to do something about it. So even if you reject God's Grace you still have God's Law to deal with.