This shows you that atheism and evolution retards people

[muman613]

I have proved that the order in things are created are completely incompatible with the bible.

Evolution is a cruel theory/philosophy, it goes 100 percent a all loving G-d. Why would G-d slowly bring mankind into the world by a load of cruel mutations, and survival of the fittest. Kent hovind talks some rubbish, but that does no mean he talks some sense on some issues. As he pointed out Man brought death into the world, evolution shows that death brings man into the world. It would be a cruel G-d to believe in such a pathetic theory.

Luckily since its got no evidence apart from watching rubystars and KWRT rambling on with their insutiing to land mammals "evidence" , i think its safe to say we can move on...

Believing in G-d and believing in the bible, especially to the strictest literal understanding you seem to hold, are two different things. Also You might think that Evolution is bad, and Atheism is bad, but it's still two different things. I am sure you also think Islam is bad, but what's it got to do with atheism except both being bad/false/evil according to your understanding ?

Can you just make yourself more clear. Do you actually believe that: "Everyone who believe in Evolution is an atheist" or in other words- that atheism is a logical deduction from evolution ? I just want to know, and if that's what you think well OK I respect your opinion although I think differently.

Hi mate. i never said atheism=evolutionist, although most atheists are evolutionists. I SAID atheism AND evolution retards people. Look you have two very intelligent posters in KWWR and rubystars both acting like they have severe retrdation when trying to "prove" evolution. I have no problem thinking that evolution is a good "philosophy"(thats all it is, since its not science), but it is not testable and observable, and its not compatable with G-d love and relationship with mankind. Why would G-d allow all that suffering to get man into the world, seems very cruel to me.

people are getting my thread confused, firstly i do not take the bible literally. I like chaims method of believing that they happened, but with alot of meta[horical and deep meaning. Like the noiahs ark thing, perfectly possible since the ark was huge, absulutely huge, it coould literally hold millions of species. That being siad, the story has a mirrored deeper meaning, non literal etc.

Im not a young earth creationist, i think kent hovind is a bit of a nutter on some issues, but on others he very similar to JTF,such as islam, evolution, abortion, israel etc.

But even if you dont like him, as the old saying goes, a broken clock is always right twice a day..

Actually we studied Noahs ark a few weeks ago since it was the Torah portion of the week...

The Ark was not enormous as you suggest. The ark was actually too small to contain all the animals which it was built to hold. The reason for this, the sages explain, was because Hashem performed a miracle. Hashem wanted Noah to build the ark {which was actually a little bigger than 3 football fields} so that the people in the world could see him building it, and hopefully they would repent from their evil ways...

But it was not "huge, absolutely huge" as you suggested...

http://www.atorahminute.com/2010-10-07
When G-d commanded Noah to build the Ark, He gave him specific instructions as to its size. When one considers the multitude of animals that were supposed to enter the Ark, even fifty arks of this size would have been much too small to hold all these animals. Clearly, the fact that they all entered the Ark was a very great miracle.

The question that begs to be answered is that if a miracle took place, why did G-d specify the particulars of the Ark, including what type of wood needed to be use, its specific dimensions and the fact that it had to have three levels? G-d could have used His miracles to save them without the Ark.

The answer is simply this: the way of the Torah is to command a person to do whatever is within his capacity within the course of nature. Whatever is lacking after that, G-d completes with a miracle.

http://www.aish.com/tp/b/sw/48971156.html
But there are obviously many ways by which God could have saved Noah. So why did Noah have to bother building an ark? And why did it take him 120 years?!

The Midrash says that God specifically wanted Noah to undertake a strange and unusual project, to arouse people's curiosity. God accentuated the oddity of it all by having Noah construct this huge boat ― not at the sea shore ― but on a mountain-top! This way people would ask Noah ― "What the heck are you doing?!" ― and Noah could engage them in discussion about the global crisis, and how catastrophe could be avoided if people would change their ways.

Well, 120 years is a long time, and you would think that Noah would have convinced a lot of people to get back on track. But alas, instead of reaching out to influence others, Noah saw the Ark as his own ticket to survival ― a chance to build a big wall and insulate himself from the evils of society.

http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-date/2010/04/?p=811
This approach can answer the questions that you have with this particular incident.Yes the ark, left to the laws of science, would have never been able to last in such a tumultuous storm. But that’s only true if we’re bound by the laws of science. G-d is not.

This also explains how Noah was able to fit every animal that existed at that time in a boat of finite proportions. Just the fodder for the animals’ nourishment (for an entire year!) was enough to fill up the ark, let alone all the animals themselves!

The fact that the animals came onto the ark voluntarily, through miraculous means guaranteed that Noah would not leave any behind. Once again, a miracle.

As I said, there are many points in this story and others in the Torah that cannot be explained using the laws of science. G-d, who created the world and all the laws of nature, can abrogate those laws whenever He sees fit to do so.

[Rubystars]

Hi mate. i never said atheism=evolutionist, although most atheists are evolutionists.

I don't think that atheism necessarily leads to someone accepting evolution. I think most atheists are evolutionists because it's the prevailing idea about how life got diverse, and also because they don't have any religious objections to it.

I SAID atheism AND evolution retards people. Look you have two very intelligent posters in KWWR and rubystars both acting like they have severe retrdation when trying to "prove" evolution.

I'm glad that you say we are smart, but how are we acting like we have severe retardation? We're just sharing the evidence for evolution. We saw that evidence, and we can draw meaningful conclusions from that evidence. We follow that evidence where it leads.

I have no problem thinking that evolution is a good "philosophy"(thats all it is, since its not science), but it is not testable and observable, and its not compatable with G-d love and relationship with mankind. Why would G-d allow all that suffering to get man into the world, seems very cruel to me.

There are many cruel things in the world, but all this boils down to is a philosophical or theological argument. It doesn't invalidate evolution on a scientific level. if you want to argue against evolution, you need to do so on the basis of evidence. To be fair, you won't get far that way. That's why a lot of creationists focus on emotional arguments.

people are getting my thread confused, firstly i do not take the bible literally. I like chaims method of believing that they happened, but with alot of meta[horical and deep meaning. Like the noiahs ark thing, perfectly possible since the ark was huge, absulutely huge, it coould literally hold millions of species. That being siad, the story has a mirrored deeper meaning, non literal etc.

I think we should first look at what Bible stories can teach us.

Im not a young earth creationist, i think kent hovind is a bit of a nutter on some issues, but on others he very similar to JTF,such as islam, evolution, abortion, israel etc.

JTF never advocated or engaged in breaking the law.

But even if you dont like him, as the old saying goes, a broken clock is always right twice a day..

I think he has a lot to repent for. I can't tell you whether he's going to heaven or hell, that's between him and God. What I will say is that I think he's very wrong on almost everything he says about science. Anyone who seriously says to an audience that evolution teaches we came from rocks is just outright being deceptive or has a horrible misunderstanding of evolution.

[Dr. Dan]

Wait one second. Who's to say death is cruel when there is a heaven in an after life? Who are you judge what is cruel with Gd's actions?

I have proved that the order in things are created are completely incompatible with the bible.

Evolution is a cruel theory/philosophy, it goes 100 percent a all loving G-d. Why would G-d slowly bring mankind into the world by a load of cruel mutations, and survival of the fittest. Kent hovind talks some rubbish, but that does no mean he talks some sense on some issues. As he pointed out Man brought death into the world, evolution shows that death brings man into the world. It would be a cruel G-d to believe in such a pathetic theory.

Luckily since its got no evidence apart from watching rubystars and KWRT rambling on with their insutiing to land mammals "evidence" , i think its safe to say we can move on...

[syyuge]

I think that Hashem created things in his six days with his approved evolutionary methods. Where is any paradox or anomaly in this process.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Hi mate. i never said atheism=evolutionist, although most atheists are evolutionists. I SAID atheism AND evolution retards people. Look you have two very intelligent posters in KWWR and rubystars both acting like they have severe retrdation when trying to "prove" evolution.

I would never mock retarded people.  That would be offensive and insensitive.  So I deny your accusation.

I have no problem thinking that evolution is a good "philosophy"(thats all it is, since its not science), but it is not testable and observable,

  Yes, it is.   You're in denial about it, but I'm willing to accept that.

and its not compatable with G-d love and relationship with mankind. 

This is your own philosophy that you made up.   And I don't understand how what you just said is in any way consistent.   The first part of what you said was that you have no problem with people "thinking it's a good philosophy," but now you say that this philosophy is inherently incompatible with "God-love" and "relationship with mankind"  ----  So how can that be a good philosophy?     

Why would G-d allow all that suffering to get man into the world, seems very cruel to me.

What suffering are you referring to?

people are getting my thread confused, firstly i do not take the bible literally. I like chaims method of believing that they happened, but with alot of meta[horical and deep meaning. Like the noiahs ark thing, perfectly possible since the ark was huge, absulutely huge, it coould literally hold millions of species. That being siad, the story has a mirrored deeper meaning, non literal etc.

If this claim of yours is true, you wouldn't have such a deep theological conviction against evolution.  But it seems this claim of yours isn't completely true.      You do seem to take the Bible extremely literally.
And actually if you consider the dimensions of the ark, it wasn't that huge to hold millions of species!

Im not a young earth creationist,

Well that's a positive development!   

[Chai]

I have been thinking alot about this Evolution does seem possible with finding by archeologists , yet I do see creatures that defy this, Im not going to get into it because I think the real issue should be time. I think IT has slowed down became there are temporal anomalies in the center of the universe; all the while the universe is expanding and it should not be. ol AL Einstein was very surprised and had kept the expanding theory  to himself for various odd reasons.

So the Answer is Time is not a constant. You cant go in time to prove that wrong lol so we will never know.

What do you think Dan?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The fact that people have lower back pain is evidence for evolution. The evolutionary process does leave certain flaws in the designs. A creature that is designed from scratch, well, we would expect them to be less flawed. We would expect them not to have blind spots, lower back pain, etc. There are trade-offs in evolution. If we gained the ability to walk upright and carry things, part of the price of that gain was lower back pain. Another price was a slower running speed.

Or that this is a world that has been permanently blotched from the very real reality of sin and its consequences (something that the vast majority of evolutionists would also deny).

Lower back pain is not "proof" of evolution any more than a handful of ambiguous skulls are. Back pain is like carpal tunnel syndrome or most non-autoimmune arthritis; the product of years upon years of repetitive motion and strain upon the human body. Every animal known to man accrues some form of wear/tear over its existence. However, lower back pain is quite rare in human beings that have not had a lifetime of manual-labor employment or otherwise subjected themselves to physical exertion that affected the area. In short, the fact that things wear out is proof of nothing more than the fact that everything perishes since Adam chose to be disobedient.

[Rubystars]

Or that this is a world that has been permanently blotched from the very real reality of sin and its consequences (something that the vast majority of evolutionists would also deny).

You can't really quantify "sin" though, even though it does have consequences.

Lower back pain is not "proof" of evolution any more than a handful of ambiguous skulls are. Back pain is like carpal tunnel syndrome or most non-autoimmune arthritis; the product of years upon years of repetitive motion and strain upon the human body. Every animal known to man accrues some form of wear/tear over its existence. However, lower back pain is quite rare in human beings that have not had a lifetime of manual-labor employment or otherwise subjected themselves to physical exertion that affected the area. In short, the fact that things wear out is proof of nothing more than the fact that everything perishes since Adam chose to be disobedient.

Interesting points, and I see what you mean from a theological perspective. I do think some of the degenerate nature of the world is due to sin, but not all of it.

I think that the reason lower back pain was mentioned is that walking upright is relatively new, and a little bit unusual, and it puts certain stresses on the skeleton because it's not as stable as having four limbs to absorb the shock. Another example would be that we gained the power of speech, but we're more prone to choking than many other animals are. These are relics of the process used.

[Yaakov Mendel]

I have proved that the order in things are created are completely incompatible with the bible.

And why would one assume that the Bible is right ? Let us compare biblical claims and scientific claims and analyze which approach is the most convincing, based on empirical evidence and logic, because other decision criteria are subjective and thus dependent on personal beliefs and preferences.

Evolution is a cruel theory/philosophy, it goes 100 percent a all loving G-d. Why would G-d slowly bring mankind into the world by a load of cruel mutations, and survival of the fittest.

So, in other words, you make two big assumptions : 1) there is a G-d; 2) He is a loving G-d, He cannot be cruel. And, since you consider that evolution is a "cruel theory" (I'm not sure what that value judgement means, by the way), you conclude that evolution cannot be true. What kind of logic is this ? Are we brought back to the most primitive forms of human thinking ? Who is "retarded", to use your own arrogant and offensive expression ? Scientists who patiently and rigorously accumulate evidence to back up their claims ? Or you ? Do you think science and knowledge would have made any progress in history with people like you who interpret the Bible literally and view it as an accurate way of explaining physical phenomena and the universe ?

[Yaakov Mendel]

In short, the fact that things wear out is proof of nothing more than the fact that everything perishes since Adam chose to be disobedient.

So, according to you, a moral allegory can be proved ? And the "proof" would be a physical process ?

 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The same God that gave us lower back pain also gave us the intelligence to understand its origin, treat it and prevent it.    With proper fitness, and proper precautions regarding lifting heavy objects, lower back pain is barely an issue.   The key is developing the relatively underdeveloped muscles of the lower back which support the spine and are a foundation for the upper back and rest of the body.

I don't buy the arguments about "flaws in the design."   The notion of "flaws" is a value judgment, and it's completely subjective.

[Rubystars]

KWRBT, what about almost undeniable flaws, such as people born with severe deformities?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT, what about almost undeniable flaws, such as people born with severe deformities?

People being born with deformities is not a 'flaw in the design of a human' because such people are born without actual optimal human functioning.   Ie, say someone designed a ferrari and when built properly it runs great exactly as designed, but occasionally one of the factory workers puts a part in wrong, so some come out not optimally - the design of the ferrari is not in dispute, it's carrying out the design according to plan.   So I view that as a separate issue, though difficult in its own right, to reconcile with faith.   Why are people born with malfunction, why do things go wrong every now and again with cell replication or with embryonic development.   And why is that good for us.   I don't know.   But probably the master plan of God has to be invoked, along with reward and punishment both in this world and the next, to understand those why's.

[Rubystars]

The Hensel twins (the conjoined twins, who share a body, each controls about one half of the body), said they were that way because that's how God decided to make them. I can't say I disagree with that. Deformities are a form of biological variation, even if they don't lead to greater survivability. 

[christians4jews]

DENIAL of what evidence, we all agree the fossil recods dont show evidence for evolution, atheists and evolutions admit this.

Chromosomes got schooled by kent hovind, so well move on from that...

Back pains evidence???wtf, please tell me i misread that???


There is NO observable and testable evidence that humans came from apes(decendants), none. The best evidence for a missing link thus far goes to KWRBT and rubystars for trying to insult my intelligence by putting up quite laughable evidence....


if evolution was a muderer in court and KWRBT and Ruby provided that evidence then it would be a white wash and the judge would laugh you both out of court.

[Rubystars]

DENIAL of what evidence, we all agree the fossil recods dont show evidence for evolution, atheists and evolutions admit this.

You've misunderstood. The fossil record IS evidence for evolution. It's just that evolution stands on other evidence so well that fossils are just the icing on the cake. The point the evolutionists were trying to make in the video about fossils is that evolution is so well-established that even if we didn't have any fossils, that there would still be a mountain of evidence in its favor.

Chromosomes got schooled by kent hovind, so well move on from that...

No, he did no such thing. He didn't do anything except try to work up a (scientifically ignorant) audience.

One of the problems with those speaking debates is that some of the evidence for evolution requires understanding some of the science that goes along with it, and in a few minutes you can't really give the audience a full course in Biology. For example you can't just talk about endogenous retroviruses as evidence for evolution. To a non-scientific audience, you need to explain what those are, and that takes precious time away from debating, even assuming they understood your explanation.

Hovind also preys upon that ignorance by claiming to be against statements that evolution never even made in the first place. It's called setting up a straw man. For example when he says that "You didn't come from a rock", well every evolutionist would probably agree with that one, because evolution never claimed we evolved from rocks.

Back pains evidence???wtf, please tell me i misread that???

It's a relic of the evolutionary process.

There is NO observable and testable evidence that humans came from apes(decendants), none.

Does that make you feel more comfortable to believe that?

I should clarify though, humans did not evolve from any modern apes. Apes and humans shared a common ancestor. That's very different than saying we evolved from chimps or gorillas. They're just as evolved from the common ancestor, just in different ways.

The best evidence for a missing link thus far goes to KWRBT and rubystars for trying to insult my intelligence by putting up quite laughable evidence....

Please be specific. What evidence that either of us shared was laughable?

if evolution was a muderer in court and KWRBT and Ruby provided that evidence then it would be a white wash and the judge would laugh you both out of court.

Could you please be more specific as to why?

[elsasdream]

I agree with most of the posters here... evolution absolutely does not negate G-d. I mean how is that even possible? Just as we change to adapt to our environments (work, family, friends, the gym, religious services, cold weather, hot weather) so too life on the planet changes and adapts to global changing environments.

This doesn't mean that G-d did not create life but as he continues to form his creation he adapts and makes changes that make the creation closer to his dream. Every artist does this. No artist or creator of any sort is ever satisfied with their creation after the first pass. Even though he "saw it was good" he can still make edits. Ask any artist, writer, etc and you will know that editing and adapting are a part of the creative process... Why couldn't G-d feel the same way? Why must all decisions have to have been made by day 6?

Thoughts?

[Rubystars]

Hello elsa, welcome to the forum! I don't believe that God ever makes mistakes, or second-guesses Himself. However I do believe that God loves variety, and your point about the artist's touch can be applied in that sense.

The old earth/universe and evolution paint a much more dramatic and beautiful picture than the very simplistic 6000 years old universe idea does. God allowed many forms of life to live and die for billions of years before human beings ever walked the earth, all under His authority and guidance. To me this is a beautiful thing, an awe-inspiring thing, a grand thing.

[christians4jews]

DENIAL of what evidence, we all agree the fossil recods dont show evidence for evolution, atheists and evolutions admit this.

You've misunderstood. The fossil record IS evidence for evolution. It's just that evolution stands on other evidence so well that fossils are just the icing on the cake. The point the evolutionists were trying to make in the video about fossils is that evolution is so well-established that even if we didn't have any fossils, that there would still be a mountain of evidence in its favor.

Chromosomes got schooled by kent hovind, so well move on from that...

No, he did no such thing. He didn't do anything except try to work up a (scientifically ignorant) audience.

One of the problems with those speaking debates is that some of the evidence for evolution requires understanding some of the science that goes along with it, and in a few minutes you can't really give the audience a full course in Biology. For example you can't just talk about endogenous retroviruses as evidence for evolution. To a non-scientific audience, you need to explain what those are, and that takes precious time away from debating, even assuming they understood your explanation.

Hovind also preys upon that ignorance by claiming to be against statements that evolution never even made in the first place. It's called setting up a straw man. For example when he says that "You didn't come from a rock", well every evolutionist would probably agree with that one, because evolution never claimed we evolved from rocks.

Back pains evidence???wtf, please tell me i misread that???

It's a relic of the evolutionary process.

There is NO observable and testable evidence that humans came from apes(decendants), none.

Does that make you feel more comfortable to believe that?

I should clarify though, humans did not evolve from any modern apes. Apes and humans shared a common ancestor. That's very different than saying we evolved from chimps or gorillas. They're just as evolved from the common ancestor, just in different ways.

The best evidence for a missing link thus far goes to KWRBT and rubystars for trying to insult my intelligence by putting up quite laughable evidence....

Please be specific. What evidence that either of us shared was laughable?

if evolution was a muderer in court and KWRBT and Ruby provided that evidence then it would be a white wash and the judge would laugh you both out of court.

Could you please be more specific as to why?

LMAO no he wasnt saying that, he literally got destroyed by hovind on rhe fossill record, as fossills prove jack diddly squat, i suggest you watch the video again, you do realise hes debating professors of science and destroying them. When you get a evolutions/ATHEIst cornered all you harp on about is "oo but we neve rclaim to know it all".

Rubystars you have shown me ZERO evidence for evolution, all you bang on about is the typical atheist speal(you may as well be an atheist if you take richard dawkins seriously). All you do is claim i dont understand it, and science even though ill put alot of money on being more qualified in the scietific field than both you and KWRBT.

Now ill ask you again,please show me an example of a ape turning into a human, or how some baby birds fly over 4000 miles across sea and navigate themselves perfectly to where there mother is, explain how the bomberdeer beatle does all its cool stuff, when it needed all of thoese things simaltenously???

Explain how chickens and dinosaurs are linked???

Its a  philosophy, and a awful one at that...I dont want any patronising remarks, any "oooooo you need millions of years" baloney, because no offence you and KWRBT "evidence" for evolution is crap. Step up your games otherwise i cannot be bothered with this debate..

[elsasdream]

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9OHz8D/www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif

[elsasdream]

I have been thinking alot about this Evolution does seem possible with finding by archeologists , yet I do see creatures that defy this, Im not going to get into it because I think the real issue should be time. I think IT has slowed down became there are temporal anomalies in the center of the universe; all the while the universe is expanding and it should not be. ol AL Einstein was very surprised and had kept the expanding theory  to himself for various odd reasons.

So the Answer is Time is not a constant. You cant go in time to prove that wrong lol so we will never know.

What do you think Dan?

Chai, do mean that time could be contracting and expanding? That there is a temporal flux and perhaps the way we perceive time and the ultimate reality may not be the same? How do you see this theory tying in with evolution?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

DENIAL of what evidence, we all agree the fossil recods dont show evidence for evolution, atheists and evolutions admit this.  

Is this a joke?

[Rubystars]

LMAO no he wasnt saying that, he literally got destroyed by hovind on rhe fossill record, as fossills prove jack diddly squat, i suggest you watch the video again, you do realise hes debating professors of science and destroying them. When you get a evolutions/ATHEIst cornered all you harp on about is "oo but we neve rclaim to know it all".

He was saying that the strength of the evidence for evolution is so great that you could throw out all the fossils and it wouldn't matter. I'm familiar with the points used back and forth in these kinds of debates and I am sure if you asked him, he'd tell you the same thing I have.

Hovind is a skillfull public speaker, but his grasp of science is absolutely terrible. The scientist has the knowledge but may not be able to deliver what he wants to say to an uneducated audience as smoothly as Hovind does.

This doesn't mean that Hovind "destroyed" him or invalidated his points.

Rubystars you have shown me ZERO evidence for evolution, all you bang on about is the typical atheist speal(you may as well be an atheist if you take richard dawkins seriously).

I take him seriously as a biologist. I don't agree with his atheism.

All you do is claim i dont understand it, and science even though ill put alot of money on being more qualified in the scietific field than both you and KWRBT.

It's possible that you know more than us on another scientific topic, but not on this one.

Now ill ask you again,please show me an example of a ape turning into a human,

Apes and humans share a common ancestor, but no modern ape ever evolved into a human, and the apes of today are just as evolved as humans are, their evolution just went in a different direction. I'm not sure what you want me to present to you here in terms of evidence. I could show you some evidence that we're genetically related to apes, but I doubt that would do any good, because you would ignore it. I could show you transitional fossils from ape-like ancestors to modern humans, but I doubt that would do any good because you would either claim they are fake or ignore them. So what exactly do you want that would convince you if I could present it?

or how some baby birds fly over 4000 miles across sea and navigate themselves perfectly to where there mother is,

I can get information for you about how migrations likely evolved, but will you read it?

Read this link, it's only a few paragraphs long. Then tell me why you think its right or wrong.
http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/animal-migration3.htm

explain how the bomberdeer beatle does all its cool stuff, when it needed all of thoese things simaltenously???

The following information is from this page, which you can read in its entirety if you really want to know the answer.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

The scenario below shows a possible step-by-step evolution of the bombardier beetle mechanism from a primitive arthropod.

1.Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]


2.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])


3.Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.


4.The invaginations 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])


5.A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.


6.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.


7.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.


8.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]



9.Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.


10.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.


11.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.


12.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]


13.The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.


14.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.


15.The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions.

Explain how chickens and dinosaurs are linked???

Chickens are just one type of dinosaur.

Its a  philosophy, and a awful one at that...I dont want any patronising remarks, any "oooooo you need millions of years" baloney, because no offence you and KWRBT "evidence" for evolution is crap. Step up your games otherwise i cannot be bothered with this debate..

I hope I've "stepped up the game" enough.

[Rubystars]

DENIAL of what evidence, we all agree the fossil recods dont show evidence for evolution, atheists and evolutions admit this.  

Is this a joke?

Evolutionists need to be careful how they phrase things because creationists will jump on any apparent discrepancy even if it's taken out of context.

In the video he posted, there is an evolutionist saying that fossils aren't important. That doesn't mean that they're not evidence for evolution, but it's taken that way. Creationists love to quote mine.

[Rubystars]

C4J, I'll respond to your latest questions when you take the time to actually read, and respond to the points I made in my last post. I know it's a long post, but you asked several questions, and it takes more than a couple of sentences to answer each one.