[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: Creation vs Evolution: The Bombardier Beetle Challenge
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://crev.info/2018/02/creation- ... n-bombardier-beetle-challenge/
Published: Feb 9, 2018
Author: David F. Coppedge
Post Date: 2018-02-09 14:59:08 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 11183
Comments: 128

Bombardier beetles made the news again this week. Creation scientists have long used them to challenge evolutionary theory. Can the Darwinians fight back?

Watch a funny video on National Geographic

of a barfing toad. The toad made the mistake of sneaking up on a bombardier beetle and snatching it with its tongue before the beetle could fire its weapons. It’s not hard to imagine what happened inside the toad’s stomach, because a few minutes later, the toad gags and vomits out the beetle, practically turning its stomach inside out to get rid of the pest which, though sticky with gastric juices, is none the worse for wear and crawls away.

The amazing bombardier beetle is the “dinner date from hell,” the article quips. New Scientist says these beetles can survive for almost two hours before being spit out by any predator unlucky enough to gulp them down. Japanese scientists proved it was the bug’s cannons that forced the vomit response, because beetles that had already fired their weapons were not regurgitated.

Creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution since the days of Duane Gish and Robert Kofahl in the 1960s and 1970s. Jobe Martin talked about them in his films, Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. How could such a system evolve by a Darwinian process? Unless the entire mechanism were in place, the bug would blow itself to bits. The secular articles admit that it’s a remarkable “shock and awe” defense mechanism. National Geographic explains,

Bombardier beetles aren’t especially rare; more than 500 species live on every continent except Antarctica, and all of them create a toxic brew of chemicals in a special chamber at the bottom of their abdomen.

The molecules are mixed together at the last minute and react to form hydrogen peroxide and another class of compounds called benzoquinones, along with huge amounts of heat and pressure. Both chemicals are irritants and can damage skin and lungs.

Thanks to the shape of the chamber, this boiling foul mixture is ejected with a huge force.

Luc Bussiere at The Conversation is similarly intrigued by these bugs. He includes slow-motion video of the beetle firing its weapons. You can see that the eruption comes out well-aimed and in spurts. The explosion actually creates smoke. Could this evolve?

In Spacecraft Earth, Dr Henry Richter describes the creation challenge presented by the bombardier beetle, which he calls one of his favorite examples of creatures that defy evolution.

This amazing insect uses two separate chambers in its abdomen, one for the explosive (hydrogen peroxide) and one for the detonator (hydroquinone). These chemicals must be kept separate and in a deactivated state. When they are mixed in the combustion chamber, they must be activated at just the right time, in the right amounts, and in the right way, or else the bug will be a victim of its own weapon, unable to reproduce. How could such a system evolve? Everything had to work right from the beginning, or no offspring would see the light of day to pass along the lucky discovery.

He quotes Lyell Rader’s 1998 book for additional details:

Bombardier beetle (Wikimedia Commons)

All of these systems have to be in flawless working conditions for the beetle to survive. The cannons without the explosives would be meaningless. One chemical without the other would not explode. Both chemicals, without the inhibitor, would blow the beetle to bits. Without the anti-inhibitor, the beetle would be unable to trigger the explosion at all. Without the storage chambers, it wouldn’t have the chemicals on hand when needed. Without strongly reinforced, heat-proof combustion tubes and cannons, the heat generated by the explosion would cook the beetle.

But most amazing of all is the hair trigger communications system. The beetle identifies a potential enemy; waits until the enemy gets its mouth open; pulls the anti-inhibitor like a firing pin on a rifle; aims its cannons; and sends a scalding blast of noxious gas from its tail into the mouth of the aggressor, curbing its appetite for any more beetles. These five functions must be perfectly timed to a fraction of a second.

Richter adds more detail illustrating the irreducible complexity of this creature:

There’s more to this story. High speed cameras have shown that the beetle fires a rapid series of shots rather than one explosive burst. This gives the bug finer control over the explosion, preventing the recoil that would send it flying. The beetle can also aim its heat weapon precisely over a wide range of angles. All these controls require additional ‘brain software’ for their use.

It’s no wonder, Richter says (pp 79-80), that creationists have enjoyed pointing to the bombardier beetle as a challenge to evolution. (As for the evolutionist quibble that the chemicals are not explosive, see Gish’s response quoted here.)

The Darwinian Response

Evolutionists must certainly be aware that creationists have long used the bombardier beetle as evidence against evolution. Let’s look in the three pro- evolution articles for their comeback arguments:

National Geographic: “bombardier beetle species may have evolved the ability to survive toads’ digestive system…” New Scientist: “In another experiment, the researchers found bombardier beetles are more likely to survive after 20 minutes in a toad stomach than 14 other beetle species. This suggests they have evolved a tolerance for toad digestive juices.” The Conversation: “The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-66) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#67. To: A Pole (#66)

No evolution here

paraclete  posted on  2018-02-10   18:03:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: A Pole, Liberator, A K A Stone (#11)

He did it through the evolution. He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process.

The main issue with theistic evolution is in the literal distinction man and woman are created.

Genesis 1: NKJV

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Quite clear mankind is not an evolution of an already created animal. Mankind is distinct and made in the Image of God and His likeness.

Theistic evolution may be popular to get through cocktail parties but it surely goes against God's stated design of man and woman distinct from all other creation.

Then there's the case of how far to we allegorize the early chapters of Genesis. God's definition of marriage is in Genesis 2:24 which is quoted by Christ in Matthew 19. Then of course the fall of humanity is in Genesis 3, which later we learn why the second Adam, Christ must come for our redemption (or rescue for Eastern Orthodox).

Three tightly packed chapters which both OT and NT writers refer to as literal events and literal people.

Don't know about you, but I don't base my eternal hope on story time. Jesus quoted Genesis quite often. So does Paul in his epistles.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   18:47:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: A Pole (#59)

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

How much later?

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   18:50:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: A K A Stone, A Pole, Liberator (#19)

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

If you all want a Bread of Life discourse debate I would recommend another thread in Bible Study.

Don't know how a creation and evolution thread turned into a Eucharist debate.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   18:53:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Liberator (#43)

Scientists tried to accelerate generations and stumble into a mutation that might cause the fruit fly to "evolve." Instead, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the flies grew weaker and de-volved.

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   18:56:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: A Pole (#54)

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents?

You see, this is what people don't understand about about Christians.

Christians don't believe in evolution, yet they do believe in rapid speciation.

That is how all those animals became deposited over the earth.

Now as for insects, fish, or any other animal that wouldn't have been bothered too much by a flood, I feel the Bible authors felt no need to address that.

But, you can think as you may.

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-10   19:01:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: A Pole (#57)

Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept

Actually it was Huldrych Zwingli.

The Reformed church believes in real presence at the Lord's Supper. Not in the elements. Meaning the elements do not change in some matter from what is seen.

When Jesus turned water to wine it actually changed. Every miracle of Christ showed the change. For example a withered hand became well. When God manifested His miracles on matter they were visible. As opposed to effecting a change of heart leading to repentance. That is unseen in the moment but manifested thereafter in the works and fruits of the Holy Spirit working in the child of God.

Now there is a distinction between what the Orthodox call a mystery with regards to the Eucharist, and Roman medieval metaphysics of Transubstantiation. But you make no distinction. As I said perhaps we should have a Bread of Life discourse discussion in another thread as you obviously don't know all the various views including the varied views the early church fathers had. There were 3 or 4 different views in that era.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   19:07:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: A Pole (#54)

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   19:11:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: redleghunter (#71)

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

With 40+ genders to choose from.

Maybe alienating the sheeple from science isn't working out so great.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   19:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: VxH (#75)

With 40+ genders to choose from.

LOL yeah forgot that.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   19:28:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Liberator (#41)

I've pondered how I might respond further on this topic, and it occurs to me that this is an issue where there is no small amount of difference in perspectives. Creationists argue that all species of life were spoken into existence perhaps with an earth that is just 6000 years old (I suppose some creationists would hold it could be much older), while the standard secular science says the earth is some 4.5 billion years old with life arising spontaneously and evolving into higher forms from there.

That is no small amount of difference. Most arguments are about issues where the parties agree on 90% of the facts, but on this one, the agreement is hardly more than that planet earth and life both exist.

To me, starting with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" and building a scientific model around it is flawed for the simple reason that (at least most people) have never established any valid, objective reason for accepting the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". You talk about strata being evidence of the Great Flood, but secular science also says there have been many great floods throughout geologic history, including the Black sea being flooded within weeks by a breach of the barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea (which may have been the event upon which the story of the Biblical flood was based).

I don't see creationists argue that the universe is smaller than science says, and for me it seems quite reasonable that the universe is as old as it is large.

I am glad that my particular beliefs do not depend on evolution being factual or not. That we have an immortal soul, or stated accurately, we ARE immortal souls, and that what we HAVE for a short time are mortal bodies, which are far inferior to souls, that our human nature & origins adds NOTHING to our value as souls. Nothing at all.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

So if you really want to convince anyone about creationism, you have to convince people that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. That's it.

Now we've had some of that discussion in the past and I've issued my challenges on this point. You promised to get back to me several times and it's up to you if you ever do. I have not judged and will not judge you for not doing so and set no time limit at all, even if you never do. But I will say this: I have yet to find a single person who has ever made any real effort at all to debunk my perspective on this subject, much less even come close to succeed in doing so, even though I have come to the arena a number of times. Under my model, God is more patient, more forgiving, never judges, never gets angry and so on. And yet there is full accountability for how we live, and a real purpose to life and for the existence of the universe and everything in it. And it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not or how old the universe. In fact the universe itself, for all it's wonder, is a mere tool created for a greater end. It all fits together so much better. Perfectly really.

So if and when you want to come to the floor on the REAL topic here, I'm game. Until then, arguing/debating about evolution vs creationism is, I will say most politely, a waste of time.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-02-10   21:40:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Pinguinite, redleghunter, no gnu taxes, a pole (#77) (Edited)

The 6000 years old premise conflicts with the self-evident observable reality that we can see light from celestial bodies that are billions of light years away.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

That is the time scale in which DNA/RNA, and the associated cellular machinery, operate to effect the natural selection and creation of species.

The unanswered question then remains: where did DNA/RNA come from?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   21:52:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: VxH (#78)

Six Evidences of a Young Earth

Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim. Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds

Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this article by Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.

Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.

Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth

It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.

A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!

Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

For a better look at these calculations, see Billions of People in Thousands of Years?.

Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.

Does the age of the earth really matter?

While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)

But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-10   21:59:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: VxH (#78)

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

no gnu taxes  posted on  2018-02-10   22:03:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: no gnu taxes (#80) (Edited)

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well.

Every massive object exists in a gravitational well.

Shocking and awing the sheeple with buzzwords does not unexist observable reality.

Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E in the inertial frame in which it is observed.

How long is a "day" in the context of the moment when E=0 made the transition to E=(All the energy that exists in the universe)?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:25:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: no gnu taxes (#79)

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis,

Did the literal King of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: VxH (#78)

The 6000 years old premise conflicts with the self-evident observable reality that we can see light from celestial bodies that are billions of light years away.

God made a finished product. So you are incorrect. What you said proves absolutely nothing.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Liberator (#37)

One bettle does not prove either evolution or adaptation but evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory

evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory... And creationalists are just as desperate to pursue theirs.

rlk  posted on  2018-02-10   22:36:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: VxH (#78)

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

So god created plants. Then it was dark for billions of years. No that doesn't work.

You're trying to make the Bible fit into your tiny minuscule bit of knowledge you have.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:36:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: no gnu taxes (#79)

Can you articulate your "beliefs" without plagarizing and parroting?

https://www.google.com/search? q=This+is+a+major+problem+for+evolutionists+who+believe+these+rock+layers+were +laid+down+gradually

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:37:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: A K A Stone (#85)

Nope. Light was created first. Then matter condensed from it.

Just like Genesis says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:40:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: Pinguinite (#77)

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

That is far from the truth.

If the Bible said one thing and we observed other things then we wouldn't believe it. At least I wouldn't.

But the Bible fits perfectly with the natural world we observe.

And it has more then a couple of youtube vidoes behind it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:42:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: VxH (#87)

You didn't quote Genesis. You quoted something else.

Genesis says the earth was with out form and void. Not what you quoted.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:43:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: A K A Stone (#89) (Edited)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: VxH (#87)

Nope. Light was created first. Then matter condensed from it.

If there is a god and he can create light. Then he can create it already shining on the earth. Comprende Now if you don't believe in God then I can see how you think it is a bunch of nonsense either way. But you seem to say you believe. So you are putting up unnecessary stumbling blocks and making it conform to your errant thinking.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:46:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: A K A Stone (#91)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:48:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: VxH (#90)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:48:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: A K A Stone (#93) (Edited)

E=mc^2

What does this mean?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:49:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: VxH (#92)

What does Genesis 1:5 say?

You have to add to scripture to make your pet theory work. I stick to the text. You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people purely.

That is ok it is on your skin not mine. Think what you want. I don't care.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:50:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: VxH (#94)

E=MC^2

What does this mean?

You don't need that to understand the Bible.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:50:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: A K A Stone (#96)

I understand the Bible doesn't conflict with observable natural law.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:51:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: VxH (#94)

E=mc^2

Here maybe this will help.

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You're wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   22:52:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: A K A Stone (#95)

You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people

"Fallible and uninspired have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible"

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:55:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: A K A Stone (#98) (Edited)

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You mean like in the plasma at T=0+1?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   22:57:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: VxH, redleghunter (#99)

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

It would seem so from Ezekiel below.

Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (Ezekiel 28:12- 19).

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   23:01:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: VxH (#100)

No I mean without form and void.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   23:04:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: A K A Stone (#101)

So the literal king of Tyre was literally in the literal Garden after literal Adam and Eve got literally driven out of the literal Garden in Genesis 3:24?

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   23:07:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: VxH, A K A Stone, Liberator (#87)

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Correct. What AKA was saying is true. A finished product. Meaning the light from the farthest star was created from source to our solar system.

Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?

Important to point out that there is purpose in God's creation and we see it in Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning (time) God created (causation and purpose) the heavens ( space) and the earth (matter). For big bang types it's all there.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   23:10:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: VxH (#103)

So the literal king of Tyre was literally in the literal Garden after literal Adam and Eve got literally driven out of the literal Garden in Genesis 3:24?

It's both.

redleghunter  posted on  2018-02-10   23:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: VxH (#103)

Who knows. I know it is your trick question. I'd have to study it more. Not take the opinion of you. Someone who hates Jews if I am correct. If I am wrong i'm sorry.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-02-10   23:15:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: A K A Stone (#106) (Edited)

Someone who hates Jews if I am correct. If I am wrong i'm sorry.

Nope. I don't hate "Jews".

And I'm certainly less anti-Semitic than the folks perched in New Bolostan who seem to think they're superior to their fellow semites... who happen to descend from Ishmael instead of Isaac.

VxH  posted on  2018-02-10   23:25:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (108 - 128) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com