Creation vs Evolution: The Bombardier Beetle Challenge

Source: https://crev.info/2018/02/creation-vs-evolution-bombardier-beetle-challenge/
Published: Feb 9, 2018
Author: David F. Coppedge
Post Date: 2018-02-09 14:59:08 by A K A Stone
Views: 32693

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

#79: no gnu taxes    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   Reply   Private Reply


#80: no gnu taxes    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   Reply   Private Reply


#81: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#80)

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   Reply   Private Reply


#82: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#83: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#84: rlk    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   Reply   Private Reply


#85: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#86: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#79)

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


#87: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#88: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#89: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#90: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#89)

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

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

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


#91: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#92: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#93: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#94: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#93)

E=mc^2

What does this mean?

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


#95: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#96: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#97: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#98: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#99: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#100: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#98)

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   Reply   Private Reply


#101: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#102: A K A Stone    To: VxH (#100)

No I mean without form and void.

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


#103: VxH    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   Reply   Private Reply


#104: redleghunter    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   Reply   Private Reply


#105: redleghunter    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   Reply   Private Reply


#106: A K A Stone    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   Reply   Private Reply


#107: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#106)

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   Reply   Private Reply


#108: VxH    To: redleghunter (#104)

For big bang types it's all there.

Yep.

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:27:07   Reply   Private Reply


#109: A K A Stone    To: VxH (#107)

The Jews in Israel are real Jews.

A K A Stone posted on 2018-02-10 23:27:10   Reply   Private Reply


#110: VxH    To: redleghunter (#104)

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

The Sun isn't billions of light years from the Earth which, thanks to Galileo, we also know, contrary to the Catholic (that's a big C) dogma of the time, isn't at the center of the Universe.

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:31:10   Reply   Private Reply


#111: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#109)

The Jews in Israel are real Jews.

From which tribe?

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:31:34   Reply   Private Reply


#112: Pinguinite    To: A K A Stone (#88)

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

The capability people have to believe things that are not true is absolutely enormous and can hardly be overstated. So much so that people willingly die out of belief systems that are in error. Any highly experienced forum participant should have at least some appreciation for that fact.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:34:19   Reply   Private Reply


#113: VxH    To: Pinguinite (#112)

So much so that people willingly die out of belief systems

Or kill out of them.

Which, makes Thomas Jefferson and Co.'s "Infidel of every denomination" notion, constituted in the 1st amendment, a rather appealing alternative.

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:39:08   Reply   Private Reply


#114: Pinguinite    To: redleghunter (#104)

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?

So are you suggesting that God created stars and galaxies up to billions of light years away, then created all the light between them to simulate the way it would be if the light had actually traveled on its own for billions of years?

This would include creating the light of, say, supernovas in far away galaxies that we estimate happened one million years ago? Only they didn't actually happen because the universe is only 6000 years old?. It was just an illusion God created, perhaps because He was too impatient to wait billions of years for it to happen naturally?

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years? Surely, God is NOT the author of confusion or deception!

Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:46:40   Reply   Private Reply


#115: Pinguinite    To: VxH (#113)

Or kill out of them.

Indeed. We would find far more people willing to kill for what they believe than we would people willing to die for what they believe.

A sad commentary that is.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-10 23:49:10   Reply   Private Reply


#116: VxH    To: Pinguinite, redleghunter (#114)

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years?

Must be the same reason he created the Vostok ice layers.

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:50:10   Reply   Private Reply


#117: VxH    To: A K A Stone (#109)

The Jews in Israel are real Jews.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are the most advanced in the Middle East, and one of the most advanced in Asia.[1] Although same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1988, the former law against sodomy had not been enforced since a court decision of 1963.[2]
https://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

So, who legalized Sodomy there in 1963 then?

VxH posted on 2018-02-10 23:57:38   Reply   Private Reply


#118: Tooconservative    To: VxH (#117)

So, who legalized Sodomy there in 1963 then?

Pretty much had to be the Sanhedrin (supreme court), not the Knesset (legislature).

Tooconservative posted on 2018-02-11 02:29:26   Reply   Private Reply


#119: no gnu taxes    To: VxH (#81)

Instead of taking one little phrase out of context, why not address the full reasoning:

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 08:51:17   Reply   Private Reply


#120: no gnu taxes    To: VxH (#94)

E=mc^2

What does this mean?

I wonder if you know what it means.

It essentially tells us that a certain amount of energy is contained in a certain amount of mass.

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, and this energy is relatively small. Much more energy can be created by breaking the nucleus of an atom which has much more mass.

What this has to do with God creating earth is beyond me. Go tell God he is too stupid to know how to properly create a universe.

no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 09:02:32   Reply   Private Reply


#121: Pinguinite    To: no gnu taxes (#119)

(If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth.

While the difference in time flow depending on the "depth" of an observer in a "gavity well" is often overlooked (the speed at which something falls into a black hole is one example, as it would be an increasingly slow process from the perspective of an outside observer), the amount, as noted in your post, is very tiny today. And yes, the conventional view of the expanding universe holds it was much more dense at the time of the big bang.

However, to suggest earth was in a gravity well so strong that light starting a journey traveling just one million years ago (not to mention some 12 billion (as measured in today's years which scientists believe they have captured) would mean the earth was in one hell of a gravity well, making time flow 1000 x slower on earth than in the rest of the universe. And that this was the case when the universe was just 1/13,000ths younger than it is now. For that reason, I say that on it's face, it is a preposterous theory.

And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

I'd say there is a lot more than "details" to work out. These scientists have a monumental task on their hands, and it sounds to me like trying to come up with results that fit a desired conclusion, which real scientists do not do.

Pinguinite posted on 2018-02-11 10:58:00   Reply   Private Reply


#122: Liberator    To: Pinguinite (#77)

I appreciate your sincerity, intellectual honesty, and eagerness to advance the conversation...

Yes, it's time we catch up.

As to this subject and current commentary, there are still a few tidbits that can legitimately be discussed.

Liberator posted on 2018-02-11 12:59:00   Reply   Private Reply


#123: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#120)

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, a

No, it's released by breaking electron or nuclear bonds - not created.

What this has to do with God creating earth is beyond me

Obviously.

In the beginning... God said let there be light, and BANG! the Universe was.

Now, again, how long was a day in the context of the transition between E=0 and E=(Total Universal Energy), in the corresponding time period between T0 and T0+1?

VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:18:24   Reply   Private Reply


#124: no gnu taxes    To: VxH (#123)

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, a

No, it's released by breaking electron or nuclear bonds - not created.

created, released

It's just a semantics argument.

no gnu taxes posted on 2018-02-11 15:21:58   Reply   Private Reply


#125: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#120)

then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller

Maybe you do, but "physics" does not.

The localized effects of the eigenstate of any system would've been relatively the same within the bounds of the corresponding manifold coordinate system.

VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:25:43   Reply   Private Reply


#126: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#124)

created, released

It's just a semantics argument

LOL.

All the energy in the universe was Created at T=0

FAIL.

VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:28:23   Reply   Private Reply


#127: VxH    To: no gnu taxes (#124)

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds

Meh. Stupid laws. Who needs 'em anyhow - it's all "just a semantics argument".

en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Conservation_of_energy

VxH posted on 2018-02-11 15:44:49   Reply   Private Reply


#128: redleghunter    To: Pinguinite (#114)

So are you suggesting that God created stars and galaxies up to billions of light years away, then created all the light between them to simulate the way it would be if the light had actually traveled on its own for billions of years?

This would include creating the light of, say, supernovas in far away galaxies that we estimate happened one million years ago? Only they didn't actually happen because the universe is only 6000 years old?. It was just an illusion God created, perhaps because He was too impatient to wait billions of years for it to happen naturally?

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years? Surely, God is NOT the author of confusion or deception!

Creation was a finished product. As the source and summit of creation God also defined the physical material properties and laws of the universe.

Fool scientists? Deception is in our own hearts and minds. I don't poke scientists in the eye. They base all of their facts and assumptions on the observable material universe. I would probably come to the same conclusions if I did not know God can act on His own creation with the supernatural. Creation is a miracle.

redleghunter posted on 2018-02-11 17:31:36   Reply   Private Reply