Evolution Intelligent Design

Deaf moth has “completely new” noise-making defence against predators

Spread the love

Yponomeutidae - Yponomeuta sp...JPGFrom ScienceDaily:

It’s already known that some species of moth have evolved a range of defensive mechanisms to evade insectivorous bats’ highly-tuned echolocation (biosonar) detection skills. The discovery of a wingbeat-powered sound producing structure in the wings of a deaf moth is completely new.

Many larger species of moth use ears tuned to detect the echolocation calls of bats to provide an early warning of approaching bats allowing them to perform evasive manoeuvres. While others, such as some silk moths, have hindwing tails that produce salient echoes which act as false targets to bats — like the towed decoys fighter planes use against radar guided missiles.

The team of researchers from Bristol’s School of Biological Sciences and the Natural History Museum, London, were studying a group of smaller British moths known as the small ermine moths (Yponomeuta species), and discovered that despite their lack of hearing they were making continual clicking sounds whenever they fly. Unlike other species of moths, that produce sound in response to detecting an approaching bat, small ermine moths have evolved to produce continual warning sounds.

The sounds these moths produce are very similar to sounds produced by larger moths, such as the tiger moths, which warn bats of the moth’s distastefulness or toxicity (known as acoustic aposematism). At night an unpalatable moth cannot provide a bat with a conspicuous warning colour, so instead it warns its predator acoustically. The team suggest that small ermine moths are acoustically mimicking unpalatable, sound producing moths, to warn bats of their own distastefulness. …

“The fact that sound production in these moths has remained undiscovered for so long reminds us of how little we know of the complex acoustic world of bats and moths.” Paper. (open access) – Liam J. O’Reilly, David J. L. Agassiz, Thomas R. Neil, Marc W. Holderied. Deaf moths employ acoustic Müllerian mimicry against bats using wingbeat-powered tymbals. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-37812-z More.

It’s true. We know little.

Just how the moth developed such a defense is unclear. It doesn’t know about the world of sound and can’t be striving for anything one way or the other. A vast cascade of lucky accidents?

See also: Newly identified gecko is the latest in eerily accurate camouflage

Moths use acoustic camouflage to evade bats

Researchers: Poison Frog Warning Colors Also Act As Camouflage

Insects Used Camouflage 100 Million Years Ago

and

Is this the first recorded instance of smell camouflage?

17 Replies to “Deaf moth has “completely new” noise-making defence against predators

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    Just how the moth developed such a defense is unclear. It doesn’t know about the world of sound and can’t be striving for anything one way or the other. A vast cascade of lucky accidents?

    Why would knowing about the world of sound matter with respect to evolving a defence mechanism?

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Why would knowing about the world of sound matter with respect to evolving a defense mechanism?”

    Hmm, accidentally evolving sophisticated sound production for defense without prior knowledge of the properties of sound does not plausible in the least. As Newton stated, “Did blind chance know that there was light, and what was its refraction, and fit the eyes of all creatures, after the most curious manner, to make use of it? These, and suchlike considerations, always have, and ever will prevail with mankind, to believe that there is a Being who made all things, and has all things in his power, and who is therefore to be feared.”

    A short Schem of the true Religion – Isaac Newton
    Of Atheism
    Opposite to the first is Atheism in profession & Idolatry in practise. Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared.
    http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac...../THEM00007

    Of note:

    The Physics of Vision – refraction
    http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/21....._color.htm

    How the origin of the human eye is best explained through intelligent design – 2017
    Excerpt: The human eye consists of over two million working parts making it second only to the brain in complexity.,,,
    ,,, Every time we change where we’re looking, our eye (and retina) is changing everything else to compensate: focus & light intensity are constantly adjusting to ensure that our eyesight is as good it can be. Man has made his own cameras… it took intelligent people to design and build them. The human eye is better than the best human made camera. How is the emergence of eyes best explained, evolution, or design ?!
    http://reasonandscience.heaven.....ent-design

    “Direct detection of a single photon by humans,” Nature Communications 7 (July 2016):
    Excerpt: Here we report that humans can detect a single-photon incident on the cornea with a probability significantly above chance. This was achieved by implementing a combination of a psychophysics procedure with a quantum light source that can generate single-photon states of light.
    http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12172

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

  3. 3
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    Hmm, accidentally evolving sophisticated sound production for defense without prior knowledge of the properties of sound does not plausible in the least.

    Evolution does not involve prior knowledge. You are being anthropocentric.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    “Evolution does not involve prior knowledge.”

    Nor does it involve any substantiating evidence of its grandiose claims. Just unfettered imagination from Darwinists that what greatly surpasses man in engineering prowess can be had by pure accident.

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity:
    January 2019
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-a-philosophical-defence-of-truth-in-science-possible-any-more/#comment-672223

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    Evolution does not involve prior knowledge.

    That is your unsupportable claim, anyway.

  6. 6
    Brother Brian says:

    ET

    That is your unsupportable claim, anyway.

    No, that is inherent in the theory.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Brother Brian- Evolution by means of intelligent design is still evolution. There isn’t any theory of unguided evolution.

  8. 8
    Brother Brian says:

    ET

    There isn’t any theory of unguided evolution.

    And some people believe in Bigfoot and that the earth is round. 🙂

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    “And some people believe in Bigfoot and that the earth is round.”

    And some people believe in Darwinian evolution.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Brother Brian:

    And some people believe in Bigfoot and that the earth is round.

    No, some people accept that bigfoot exists and that the earth is round. There is more evidence for the existence of bigfoot than there is for unguided evolution’s ability to produce anything beyond what it has to be given to start with.

  11. 11
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    And some people believe in Darwinian evolution.

    And some people believe that a man was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, cured people with leprosy and was raised from the dead. I guess the world is full of gullible people.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Brother Brian, unlike your gullible belief in the evidence free ‘just-so’ story telling of Darwinian evolution, where blind chance magically can bring that which is dead to life, and can magically bring that which is unconscious to consciousness, and which magically can, by far, out engineer and program our best engineers and programmers,

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute – video
    https://vimeo.com/47615970
    Quote from preceding video:
    “The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA.”
    Sriram Kosuri PhD. – Wyss Institute

    Researchers storing information securely in DNA – July 11, 2016
    Excerpt: Bachand was inspired by the recording of all of Shakespeare’s sonnets into 2.5 million base pairs of DNA—about half the genome of the tiny E. coli bacterium. Using this method, the group at the European Bioinformatics Institute could theoretically store 2.2 petabytes of information—200 times the printed material in the Library of Congress—in one gram of DNA.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-dna.html

    The data compression of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick (12 different ways of DNA transcription) (Trifonov, 1989). (This is far beyond the complexity of any computer code ever written by man).
    – John Sanford – Genetic Entropy – 2005

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – published online May 2013
    Excerpt: In the last decade, we have discovered still another aspect of the multi-dimensional genome. We now know that DNA sequences are typically “ poly-functional” [38]. Trifanov previously had described at least 12 genetic codes that any given nucleotide can contribute to [39,40], and showed that a given base-pair can contribute to multiple overlapping codes simultaneously. The first evidence of overlapping protein-coding sequences in viruses caused quite a stir, but since then it has become recognized as typical. According to Kapronov et al., “it is not unusual that a single base-pair can be part of an intricate network of multiple isoforms of overlapping sense and antisense transcripts, the majority of which are unannotated” [41]. The ENCODE project [42] has confirmed that this phenomenon is ubiquitous in higher genomes, wherein a given DNA sequence routinely encodes multiple overlapping messages, meaning that a single nucleotide can contribute to two or more genetic codes. Most recently, Itzkovitz et al. analyzed protein coding regions of 700 species, and showed that virtually all forms of life have extensive overlapping information in their genomes [43].
    38. Sanford J (2008) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. FMS Publications, NY. Pages 131–142.
    39. Trifonov EN (1989) Multiple codes of nucleotide sequences. Bull of Mathematical Biology 51:417–432.
    40. Trifanov EN (1997) Genetic sequences as products of compression by inclusive superposition of many codes. Mol Biol 31:647–654.
    41. Kapranov P, et al (2005) Examples of complex architecture of the human transcriptome revealed by RACE and high density tiling arrays. Genome Res 15:987–997.
    42. Birney E, et al (2007) Encode Project Consortium: Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447:799–816.
    43. Itzkovitz S, Hodis E, Sega E (2010) Overlapping codes within protein-coding sequences. Genome Res. 20:1582–1589.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Where’s the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism?
    Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up functional complexity:
    January 2019
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-a-philosophical-defence-of-truth-in-science-possible-any-more/#comment-672223

    Brother Brian, unlike your gullible belief in the evidence free ‘just-so’ story telling of Darwinian evolution, Christianity has a rich apologetic history of robustly defending the primary claim of Christianity.

    WELCOME TO THE LIBRARY OF HISTORICAL APOLOGETICS
    http://historicalapologetics.org/

    The Historicity Of The Resurrection Of Jesus – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM

    William Lane Craig: The Evidence for Jesus’s Resurrection. Southampton Guildhall, October 2011 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ

    The (Unmatched Historical Reliability of the) Resurrection of Jesus – Dr. Gary R. Habermas (On Guard Conference 2013) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNdmSQKyzgc

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    How Reliable Is the New Testament? – Dr. Daniel Wallace (16:30 minute mark of video “The New Testament has an ‘embarrassment of riches’ compared to other ancient texts”) – video (Dr. Wallace publicly debated Bart Ehrman 3 times)
    http://www.watermark.org/media.....ment/2305/

    The reliability of the New Testament compared to other ancient texts – graph
    http://visualunit.files.wordpr.....ility1.jpg

    History proves Christ’s resurrection – article
    http://www.c-bstatesman.com/ne.....RISEN.html

    Namely, defending the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. As a British agnostic once said “let’s not discuss the other miracles; let’s discuss the resurrection. Because if the resurrection is true, then the other miracles are easily explained; and if the resurrection is not true, the other miracles do not matter.”

    And in that regards, two of my favorite apologetic approaches are the minimal facts approach and undesigned coincidences approach,

    The minimal facts approach uses the facts that leading bible scholar skeptics agree are true so as to prove the resurrection

    Dr. Gary Habermas : The “Minimal Facts” Approach to Jesus’ Resurrection – May 2014
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew47Ky2B71U

    The undesigned coincidences approach uses ‘undesigned’ biblical coincidences’ to establish the undeniable authenticity of the Biblical narrative, and to thus establish the reliability and authenticity of Jesus life and resurrection.

    Undesigned Coincidences (evidence for the historicity of the Gospels) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVLeC5HbSQ

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    And let’s not forget the unrefuted Shroud of Turin

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018
    Conclusion excerpt: If, as discussed above, by authenticity of the Shroud is meant a funerary sheet, of very ancient manufacture, of about 2000 years ago, that wrapped the corpse of a man hard tortured and dead on a cross, all the scientific clues considered seem favorable to this hypothesis.
    Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ. The most important Relic of Christianity wrapped a corpse. The blood traces correspond to those of a tortured man. The body image cannot be explained, but the most reliable hypotheses refer to an intense and probably very brief burst of energy. The
    corpse, endowed with considerable corpse rigidity, remained wrapped in the Shroud for a short period, not exceeding forty hours. All these clues therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud [27].
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf

    The repeated ‘voluntary forgetfulness’ of established facts and the repeated ‘distortion of scientific evidence’ by leading critics of the authenticity of the Shroud are gone over in the following paper

    Why is the Turin Shroud Not Fake? – Giulio Fanti* – December 04, 2018
    Excerpt page 5:
    a. As reported above, some important arguments in favor of authenticity are forgotten in an apparently voluntary way. For example the scientific fact [6,19,20,25] that the Shroud wrapped the corpse of a severely tortured man, scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified according to Roman techniques is forgotten when a painting technique to explain the body image of the Shroud is supposed. Other recent results are also forgotten, such as the numismatic dating of the Shroud through the Byzantine coins [25], which sees it already in 692 AD, while someone keeps on stating that the Shroud did not exist before 1300 AD.
    b. The reality of scientific experiments are distorted and the global result is forgotten at the expense of a particular detail useful for the present goal. For example the work [22] detected the presence of pigments of various colors on the Shroud, probably due to the contamination with other paintings, but only the red pigments have been mentioned in a paper [13] to sustain a particular thesis.
    c. Statements relative to a distorted reality can be found when for example we read that pollen grains detected by a researcher on the Shroud have not been seen afterwards [13]. In fact, the same kind of pollen grains [29] together with other particles coming from powders vacuumed from the Shroud have been recently detected thus confirming more dated results.
    d. Not correct statements are still frequent like that asserting that the sample of Shroud used in 1988 for
    radiocarbon dating had been perfectly cleaned or that the pollutant should weigh about 80% of the total weight of the fabric to reach the age in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.,,,
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555715.pdf

    As well, seeing is believing

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    As well, by allowing agent causality back into the picture of modern physics, as quantum physics itself now demands, and as the Christian founders of modern physics originally envisioned, (Sir Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, and Max Planck, to name a few), then a very credible empirically backed reconciliation, (via the Shroud of Turin), between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, i.e. the ‘Theory of Everything’, readily pops out for us in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    (January 2019) To continue on from posts 7 & 8 where I showed that both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have themselves now overturned the Copernican principle and/or the principle of mediocrity, and to further refute the Atheistic presupposition that any real significance, meaning, purpose, and value for ours lives is illusory, I will reiterate my case for Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the correct solution for the much sought after “Theory of Everything”.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bill-nye-should-check-wikipedia/#comment-671692

    Verse:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplement note, In what I consider to be a shining example of poetic justice, in their claim that God does not really exist as a real person but is merely an illusion, the Atheist himself also ends up claiming that he himself does not really exist as a real person but that he is merely a neuronal illusion. Here are a few references that drive this point home,,,

    The Confidence of Jerry Coyne – Ross Douthat – January 6, 2014
    Excerpt: But then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession (by Coyne) that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant: But more on that below.) Prometheus cannot be at once unbound and unreal; the human will cannot be simultaneously triumphant and imaginary.
    https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?mcubz=3

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins
    ”If consciousness is an illusion… what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    Atheistic Materialism – Does Richard Dawkins Exist? – video 37:51 minute mark
    Quote: “You can spout a philosophy that says scientific materialism, but there aren’t any scientific materialists to pronounce it.,,, That’s why I think they find it kind of embarrassing to talk that way. Nobody wants to stand up there and say, “You know, I’m not really here”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVCnzq2yTCg&t=37m51s

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    “The neural circuits in our brain manage the beautifully coordinated and smoothly appropriate behavior of our body. They also produce the entrancing introspective illusion that thoughts really are about stuff in the world. This powerful illusion has been with humanity since language kicked in, as we’ll see. It is the source of at least two other profound myths: that we have purposes that give our actions and lives meaning and that there is a person “in there” steering the body, so to speak.”
    [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide To Reality, Ch.9]

    “I’m not arguing that consciousness is a reality beyond science or beyond the brain or that it floats free of the brain at death. I’m not making any spooky claims about its metaphysics. What I am saying, however, is that the self is an illusion. The sense of being an ego, an I, a thinker of thoughts in addition to the thoughts. An experiencer in addition to the experience. The sense that we all have of riding around inside our heads as a kind of a passenger in the vehicle of the body. That’s where most people start when they think about any of these questions. Most people don’t feel identical to their bodies. They feel like they have bodies. They feel like they’re inside the body. And most people feel like they’re inside their heads. Now that sense of being a subject, a locus of consciousness inside the head is an illusion. It makes no neuro-anatomical sense.”
    Sam Harris: The Self is an Illusion

    Although the Darwinist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
    Excerpt: Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Paper with references for each claim page; Page 37:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pAYmZpUWFEi3hu45FbQZEvGKsZ9GULzh8KM0CpqdePk/edit

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    2017SEP10 – Why We Know Christianity is True – J Warner Wallace
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCHJbO-3-jA

    Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels – Paperback – January 1, 2013
    https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696

  17. 17
    PaV says:

    Brother Brian:

    And some people believe in Darwinian evolution.

    And some people believe that a man was born to a virgin, turned water to wine, cured people with leprosy and was raised from the dead. I guess the world is full of gullible people.

    Yes, and “some people” actually witnessed “water” turned “to wine,” and actually saw a leper cured, and actually were there when this Son of Man was crucified only to then find the Tomb empty and to eat a meal with this same Man.

    Now, has anyone actually “seen” Darwinian evolution at work: that is, the gradual development of a higher taxa? Which, then, is more believeable?

Leave a Reply