My brain hurts from trying to conceive how evolution produced these creatures.
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and ask the fowls of the air, and they shall teach thee: Or speak to the Earth, and it shall tell thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. Job12:7-10
Source: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=92
The example of the bombardier is probably given more often than any other example as a proof against evolution. This amazing insect has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. The beetle also has a third compartment into which these two substances are injecting when the beetle feels threatened. A third liquid, an enzyme, is then injected into this chamber and acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot it out of an outlet duct with amazing accuracy at the offending animal. The hot chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.
Not only is this a beautiful example of irreducible complexity, but it makes evolutionary theory seem even wackier than ever. Evolutionary theorist and intellectual lightweight Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place if they were not intended to be used as parts of a defense mechanism. Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that the beetle would evolve two chambers to contain otherwise useless liquids, it is even more absurd to propose that a third chamber for the catalyst, and a fourth chamber for the three to combine, would come into existence along with a highly sophisticated system of sphincters for a shooting mechanism all at the same time.
This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only argument that I've even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists for leaving out the catalyst from his description. In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.
One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now. They would then have a reason to pursue knowledge, instead of having wasted, useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose. What point is there in pursuing "knowledge" when they believe that their only outcome is to become one with the soil? Why would it matter to a person with such a belief what anyone believed? On the other hand, someone with a functioning brain would alter their worldview when faced with such strong evidence of creation. The evolutionist not only wastes his time with nonsense, but with nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true. What makes this even more illogical is that they deify nature anyway. By positing that nature designed such creatures, they have posited that nature is an intelligent force.
How could a non-intelligent force design anything? They have posited a designed universe with an impersonal designer that doesn't think or judge. What does that do to their claim that there is no creator at all? Either the world came about by chance or it was designed. They seem to want it both ways, but of course, their real reason that they want to deny God is that they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred. This is the true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that. The bombardier beetle is another thing for which we can thank God, because they make utter fools out of evolutionists.
But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and ask the fowls of the air, and they shall teach thee: Or speak to the Earth, and it shall tell thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. Job12:7-10
Source: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=92
The example of the bombardier is probably given more often than any other example as a proof against evolution. This amazing insect has two sacs, one of which contains hydrogen peroxide, and the other contains hydroquinone. The beetle also has a third compartment into which these two substances are injecting when the beetle feels threatened. A third liquid, an enzyme, is then injected into this chamber and acts as a catalyst to cause this noxious fluid to heat up to near boiling and to shoot it out of an outlet duct with amazing accuracy at the offending animal. The hot chemical soup is shot through a sphincter controlled firing mechanism that is in itself quite amazing.
Not only is this a beautiful example of irreducible complexity, but it makes evolutionary theory seem even wackier than ever. Evolutionary theorist and intellectual lightweight Richard Dawkins has tried to say that this was simply nature making use of materials that it had around. Not only does this preposterous argument require that nature must have had forethought and design, but it fails to explain why these substances would be lying around in the beetle in the first place if they were not intended to be used as parts of a defense mechanism. Even in the ridiculously unlikely event that the beetle would evolve two chambers to contain otherwise useless liquids, it is even more absurd to propose that a third chamber for the catalyst, and a fourth chamber for the three to combine, would come into existence along with a highly sophisticated system of sphincters for a shooting mechanism all at the same time.
This beetle is a particularly good proof that evolutionists are stupid. They only stutter or babble irrelevantly when presented with this example. The only argument that I've even seen was from a numbskull (I believe that it was Dawkins) who was criticizing a creation scientists for leaving out the catalyst from his description. In other words he was arguing against the creationist view by pointing out that the whole apparatus was much more complicated than the creationist had stated, and that the impossibility of it having come into being by chance was even greater. Two chemicals were proof enough of design; three chemicals are even greater proof! We could use more enemies like Dawkins.
One would think that these wannabe scientists would get excited about such a proof and it might occur to them that if there were a designer, then their lives need not be empty, futile and completely pointless as they are now. They would then have a reason to pursue knowledge, instead of having wasted, useless lives geared toward the pursuit of erudite babbling that serves no purpose. What point is there in pursuing "knowledge" when they believe that their only outcome is to become one with the soil? Why would it matter to a person with such a belief what anyone believed? On the other hand, someone with a functioning brain would alter their worldview when faced with such strong evidence of creation. The evolutionist not only wastes his time with nonsense, but with nonsense that would have no value to anyone even if it were true. What makes this even more illogical is that they deify nature anyway. By positing that nature designed such creatures, they have posited that nature is an intelligent force.
How could a non-intelligent force design anything? They have posited a designed universe with an impersonal designer that doesn't think or judge. What does that do to their claim that there is no creator at all? Either the world came about by chance or it was designed. They seem to want it both ways, but of course, their real reason that they want to deny God is that they hate what is good and those who do good. Logic and reason take second place to that hatred. This is the true mark of a reprobate mind, and a very undeveloped one at that. The bombardier beetle is another thing for which we can thank God, because they make utter fools out of evolutionists.
