Posted on 10/20/2009 9:02:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Just how can the dragonfly perform its energetically-demanding aerial acrobatics—flying backwards or forwards, fast, slow or hovering—and remain airborne for such extended periods?
The answer, in part, is that it...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
I don’t know what a cosmic evo is, but I picture Gram Parsons or the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band (before they went pop).
I’m not sure how you intend to discredit a biological theory with an entirely unrelated theory about the cosmos.
The point is, distant starlight was once a sticking point for biblical YECs, now it’s not. As a matter of fact, Dr. Humphreys has made a number of accurate predictions with his white hole cosmology, whareas the cosmic evos completely struck out on the same. If you want to know what I mean when I refer to the cosmic evolutionists, take a quick look at the following:
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
Take all the four wing dragonflies and cut off two of their wings.
Take those wings and glue them onto all the two winged dragonflies (or other two-winged insects).
If they all end up going extinct, then the author was correct.
The author does not believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years. I know this because GGG posted the article, and GGG supports a young earth fantasy.
Your assumption is illogical.
I can't imagine that GGG would post a creationist article that disagrees with him on this incredibly important point.
You don't know GGG very well.
Now, if you're saying that a creature who remains "the same" for such a long period of time somehow contradicts evolutionary theory, you are quite simply incorrect.
I never made that kind of statement, and If something I said led you to believe that, then please point it out to me.
I have learned that some life forms change very little, some change quite a bit, some do it slowly, some do it quickly, and most of the time the cause of their so called evolution is an adaption to the environment.
Did you even look at the site?
I shows scientific evidence for all the things you say are wrong and are answered in the bible! Totally against your worldview!
LOL!
“Unfortunately for him, the song of the eye has many discordant notes. They show it to be not the work of some great composer, but of an insensible drudge: an instrument, like all others, buit by a tinkerer rather than a trained engineer.”
The last time I checked, the eyes of flies, dragonflies in particular, are a marvel for a trained engineer to behold.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/28/BAGLVIH3KP1.DTL
All living things are marvels to behold, but insects don’t see like humans. As Jones writes: “Any insect would be astonished by our ability to see. Their eyes are built with not one, but hundreds of lenses, each of which concentrates light upon a sensor. That set of tiny and cheap cameras is a forceful statement of what evolution cannot do. Because of where they began, insect eyes are limited in what they see.” ... “Their worldview was described by the first scientist to take photographs through insect eyes as a ‘picture about as good as if executed in rather coarse wool-work and viewed at the distance of a foot.’”
They don’t need to see like humans. They don’t need the red=green=blue cones whose luminosity functions enable the brain to construct millions of colors, because they do not have reason. But they do have 30,000 receptors which give them 360deg vision and the ability to detect their own velocity up to 750fps or 750dps, it was in one of those articles I attached. Is Jones some antique scientist?
“They don’t need the red=green=blue cones whose luminosity functions enable the brain to construct millions of colors, because they do not have reason.”
Perception is one thing and reason is another.
Knowing the difference requires reason.
In humans, the age of reason is about seven; a factor that was somewhat evident in the six year old balloon boy’s classic slipup scene.
Peace ...
Reason, the ability to abstract the universal from the particular, requires the ability to distinguish and classify differences down the the gnats little behind.
Whereas a creature whose “vision” is designed to help it maintain stability and control, achieve reliable ground collision avoidance, and remarkable airborne intercept does not need millions of colors, just very good inertial navigation.
So the sensory requirements for a featherless biped differ greatly from a dragonfly.
Many of the moderns confuse knowledge and perception. As an old Belgian priest once told us, “a world where everything is based upon perception is a terrible place to live”.
Et cum spiritu tuo.
Speaking of perception, have you noticed that all living things - plants included - have some ability to perceive?
Where humans have five senses (sight-eyes, sound-ears, smell-nose, taste-mouth, touch-fingers & etc.) how many does a plant have? And, in plants, what central control mechanism would correspond to brains found in animals?
The next time you pick a tomato, thank the plant.
I would think a plant does not have any ability to process the information other than in an involuntary response preprogammed manner.
Every time I pick a tomato, I thank God. The plant glorifies it’s Creator without hesitation.
If you have ever lived in a desert, you would know that the wildflowers that spring up for just a few weeks give glory to God with their whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. In their case “mind” is not native intelligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.