Evidence for God from Science

Hi everyone I was wanting to discuss the Bombardier Beetle. This little thing is amazing to say the least! This thing has also been a centerpiece of debate among ID, oe and ye creationists and evolutionists. Creationists of all flavors say that the beetle's mechanisms could not have come about by chance and in gradual steps because it would either squirt non harmful materials or on the other end, produce a liquid so hot and intense it would blow itself up.

Meanwhile, evolutionists say that it could have easily developed it's defense by increasing the amounts of chemicals as well as the temperature over many generations without causing harm to the beetle. They also claim to have extinct fossils of beetles that proceed the modern Bombardier Beetle which show them gradually developing the mechanism that the Bombardier Beetle now proudly holds.

Right now,to me it looks like both sides have great arguments. I was wanting to see if you all know anymore about this beetle or it's descendants that you would like to add here.

But anyway here are some links to the arguments from both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi4OdrIT ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3 ... re=related

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/article/1113

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... ardier.asp

And the wikipedia page which gives reference to the evolutionary claim to have fossilized descendents of the bombardier beetle gradually developing it's defense mechanism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

I find that the arguments for this beetle are similar to that of the bacterial-motor argument, the whole thing wont work unless every piece is in the puzzle.

Alpha~Omega wrote:I find that the arguments for this beetle are similar to that of the bacterial-motor argument, the whole thing wont work unless every piece is in the puzzle.

But that doesn't mean each piece would not serve a different purpose in some other capacity. The irreducible complexity argument is extremely hard to prove.

Byblos wrote:

Alpha~Omega wrote:I find that the arguments for this beetle are similar to that of the bacterial-motor argument, the whole thing wont work unless every piece is in the puzzle.

But that doesn't mean each piece would not serve a different purpose in some other capacity. The irreducible complexity argument is extremely hard to prove.

Theistic evolutionist?

Theistic evolutionist?

No. All i was saying was that there similar. Thats it.

cubeus19 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Alpha~Omega wrote:I find that the arguments for this beetle are similar to that of the bacterial-motor argument, the whole thing wont work unless every piece is in the puzzle.

But that doesn't mean each piece would not serve a different purpose in some other capacity. The irreducible complexity argument is extremely hard to prove.

Theistic evolutionist?

How exactly do you leap from what I said to theistic evolution?

Oh I thought that because you didn't think irreducible complexity had fatal flaws in it and that you think that ID pretty much fails, I thought that would only leave you with theistic evolution. But since it looks like you do not hold to TE what do you hold to? Just wondering.

If your talking to me, I feel that ID is the most logical way to go. The Multiverse theory really just helped convince me even more that there has to be a creator, as well as the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. "Where did the first heat come from?".
Ive held to ID for a couple of years in my short life now.

Oh no, not you I was referring to Byblos.

cubeus19 wrote:Oh I thought that because you didn't think irreducible complexity had fatal flaws in it and that you think that ID pretty much fails, I thought that would only leave you with theistic evolution. But since it looks like you do not hold to TE what do you hold to? Just wondering.

I lean toward progressive creationism myself but I won't discount TE as a viable alternative either. God is at work, however he chose to do it.

If the bombardier Beetle were the only seriously complex critter we had to consider , then opposing arguments to its special creation by God, could be valid, but as you look at the complexity of most of creation, those arguements become harder and harder to verify. Animals like the Giraffe, and Sea slug, two very different critters, who have amazingly complex organs, add to validity of Special Creation.

A YEC I once met insisted Bombardier Beetles used their poisonous chemicals to help them eat seeds before the Fall caused them to use it as a defense mechanism.

Calum wrote:A YEC I once met insisted Bombardier Beetles used their poisonous chemicals to help them eat seeds before the Fall caused them to use it as a defense mechanism.

I always thought that the bombardier beetles used their poisonous chemicals to dissolve the falling rocks, before the rocks killed them.

RickD wrote:

Calum wrote:A YEC I once met insisted Bombardier Beetles used their poisonous chemicals to help them eat seeds before the Fall caused them to use it as a defense mechanism.

I always thought that the bombardier beetles used their poisonous chemicals to dissolve the falling rocks, before the rocks killed them.

Lol!!

It's kinda funny that the entirety of the debate is summarily concluded by a single reference to a single author.

Creationist debate
"Contrary to the creationist views, all necessary intermediate stages have been found in extant beetles within or closely related to the bombardier beetle family, with each intermediate giving an advantage to the organism.[5] Richard Dawkins has addressed this argument in his book The Blind Watchmaker."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle

Who could have known that a single man is able to subdue all contrary arguements in a single book. He must be a man of the supernatural kind.