[arcura]

The Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution Series enters the fascinating world of animals to reveal sophisticated and complex designs that shake the traditional foundations of evolutionary theory.

This series features Dr. Jobe Martin, who for the past 20 years, has been exploring evolution vs. creation. His findings have been fascinating students around the world as he lectures on these remarkable animal designs that cannot be explained by traditional evolution.

Dr. Martin himself was a traditional evolutionist, but his medical and scientific training would go through an evolution, rather a revolution when he began to study animals that challenged the scientific assumptions of his education. This was the beginning of the evolution of a creationist.

- Are there really creatures that produce fire to defend themselves?

- How does a giraffe get a drink without causing lethal blood pressure to his brain?
- How can Geckos walk upside down, even on glass and not fall?

- How can birds navigate over thousands of miles of ocean and never get lost?

- How do fireflies and glowworms create light that generates no heat?

- How do great whales dive to the bottom of the ocean without the pressure causing them to implode?

- What creature was the inspiration for the helicopter?
- How can some creatures be cut in half and still regenerate themselves? Some can even grow a new head!

- What kind of bird can kill a lion with a single kick?

- How can some dogs know that a storm is coming before it appears, or can sense when their masters are about to experience a seizure?

- Which creature perlexes scientists because of its amazing ability to heal itself, even when it sustains horrendous injuries?

- How do Emperor Penguins go two and a half months without eating or drinking?
:confused:Has anyone here seen this video?:confused:
:confused:If so what do you make of it?:confused:
:)Peace and kindness,:)
Fred

[adam7gur]

This sounds amazing enough to cause my interest!
I shall search for it .
Thank you Fred!

[arcura]

adam7gur,
Thanks,
Fred

[MiSSsy111222]

This video does sound really good!

[arcura]

MiSSsy111222,
If you get a chance to watch it please ;ley me know what you think of it.
Fred

[Triund]

Very interesting facts. This reminds me of a high school teacher in Toronto about whom I read in a newspaper, few years ago. He put up his point in favour of creation that there are numerous cells in an eye of an animal and those have not evolved.

Check this link for 4-part Video Series about Dr Jobe Martin's work. Request Materials.

Please post more information regarding this topic.

[homesell]

Hello Fred,
Yes I have seen the video and enjoyed it. I am a 6 day creationist but accept the fact that many born again believers believe in Evolution. I know the world has painted us 6 day creationists as stupid and/or illogical but I do have a genius IQ and taught Biology at an accredited school, so unless you have investigated all the claims from both sides, spare me the arguments you are only parrotting from secular education and the media. There are many scientists with PhD's that believe in 6 day creation so don't think ALL right minded, brilliant, scientists believe evolution occurred.

[JimGunther]

Incredible creatures don't defy evolution.

I think it is sad that we cannot keep science and religion apart, as they really should be. It is a fact that, as a general rule, all sorts of plants and other creatures alive today, including mankind, are different than they were millennia ago. Obviously, this fact has been determined by comparing what is alive today with remnants of plants and animals from the past. Of course there are exceptions.

Any given religion has a set of beliefs that presents such things as their explanation of creation, our purpose for being here, and how we should conduct ourselves.

Science does not work that way. It looks around and makes conclusions based upon what it sees. As science advances and its body of knowledge and techniques improve, its conclusions about what it sees are likely to change.

Science recognizes the fact that a given lizard alive today (for example) is not generally going to look like its ancestor from millennia ago, particularly if the conditions under which that lizard lives have changed. But that does not mean that it is impossible for a lizard to come along that spits fire, as unlikely as that may seem. Variations and "mutations" are acknowledged as possible. They do not prove or disprove the concept of "evolution," which is a generalization based upon observations of what is found around us.

[homesell]

6 day creationists do not believe all animals are exactly as they were when God created them. That would be stupid. We do believe each animal reproduces according to its kind. The dog kind for example produces more dogs. The cat kind produces cats. A dog never produces a cat. There are tremendous variations within a kind but you never see one kind becoming another kind. Science is made up of mechanical science which is repeatable, observable, measurable results. This is REAL science. Creationists agree with all other scientists on this. This is the science that should be taught in schools. Origens science however is pure speculation. Evolutionary speculation violates the very laws of science that it claims to be based on.
For example:
1. Something came from nothing. Scientist say this is impossible yet say that it happened.
2. Life came from non-life(abiogenesis)
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
3. Order has come from chaos independent of outside influence. (law of Entropy)
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
4. Obvious design(Function) without a designer.
Scientist say this is impossible yet say it happened.
Creationist and evolutionists have the same set of facts, they are just interpreted differently, like the Grand Canyon. The scientist says, "little bit of water, a whole lot of time" the creationist says, "a whole lot of water(flood) a little bit of time." I actually read a quote from a scientist saying that he had been working on creating life in his laboratory and when he accomplished this he would prove that creation took no intelligence at all."

[arcura]

God created life to be as we know it today.
That is I believe in divine design.
That is good enough for me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[albear]

How exactly do they defy evolution?

[arcura]

albear, I don't know.
I have nor seen that video.
That's why I asked.
Fred

[homesell]

Albear,
Evolution says that different changes develop over time and that is true to some extent (many different breeds of dogs- but none with wings or hoofs or scales and that cannot happen due to DNA)but there is a point of complexity that can't be bridged. The eye for example, composed of several different parts would not work at all unless all the different parts "evolved" at the same time. One of the examples in the movie was the bombardier beetle. It has 2 separate chambers in his body that hold two separate chemicals that individually are harmless but when mixed cause a small explosion. When threatened, he shoots out these 2 chemicals from each chamber at once and the explosion scares away a predator. Also, instead of a solid stream which would knock the beetle off his feet from the resulting explosion near him, he shoots a rapid fire sequence (like a machine gun) that lessons the "kick." If any part of this system wasn't developed all at the same time, the beetle would have exploded long before he could reproduce. (Just one example out of several)Darwin himself said about the eye, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

[JimGunther]

If something called origins science (or anything else for that matter) is based on speculation, it isn't science. How life originated and evolution are by definition two different concepts. Why confuse them? Creationists and evolutionists have the same set of facts? Isn't "creation" a religious notion as opposed to a scientific one? If you believe God created everything, that isn't based on facts, because we don't have the facts to prove it, it's a religious belief. That's why this issue is so tangled, we can't keep religion and science apart.

If a scientist creates "life" in his laboratory he has only proven that he can create life in his laboratory, not anything approaching the notion that "creation took no intelligence at all", that's obviously a drastically different matter.

[homesell]

Hello Jim,
That was exactly my point. Evolution is not science anymore than creationism is and neither one should be taught in our schools. Both are speculation and creationists are the only ones that at least have a transcribed eye witness account.
By the same set of facts, I meant the repeatable, observable, facts that science requires. For example, we all see rocks, trees, cats, dogs, etc. Creation scientists and evolutionary scientists agree on all observable, repeatable facts. Speculating on how and when these things came into existence is just that... speculation. So theories (or models as science calls them) about things that are not repeatable and not ever observed have no place in the science classroom.
My point about the scientist and the no intelligence at all is that, in essence, if he did succeed, he would have proven that he himself had no intelligence at all since he was the one setting up and directing the lab experiments.

[JimGunther]

No, evolution is not science, it is a conclusion based on scientific observation of the things we find around us. A simple example is mankind-look at man today compared to millennia ago. Scientific observations tell us that man has changed drastically from his origins and people have come to calling this "evolution." I find it shocking that anyone could call such reasoning "speculation", it obviously isn't.

Neither is the notion that God created what we see around us, it's a religious belief as is any notion involving the idea of a supreme being or all-powerful creator. It should be obvious that only people who believe in a certain religion believe that their notion of creation is a "transcribed eye witness account." People who believe that do so because of religious faith, which is obviously far removed from the way science works.

You shouldn't have to worry about a scientist in a lab proving that all creation was done without intelligent design, it should be obvious that just because one person can do such a thing doesn't mean that it actually happened that way in the real would and science wouldn't accept it as such, though it sure would get people thinking about the possibility. Of course they are doing that already.

You keep using the term "six day creationists." Obviously scientists don't believe in the notion that all this stuff we see around us was created in six days because the evidence does not support that conclusion. But, as I said, there are a lot of things in the Bible that cannot be explained and maybe God's calendar is different than ours, who knows. I think it is a waste of time to try to verify the Bible with science, faith should be all a person needs to be a believer.

You say that creation scientists and evolutionary scientists agree on all observable facts. I never liked the term "creation scientist" because I see the two terms as contradictory. If you believe in the notion of creation by a supreme being, you are not expressing a scientific idea. Its an idea based on religious faith.

Science CAN use its tools and methods to make conclusions about how things came into existence, again, its not speculation if the verifiable evidence is there. Science has a pretty good idea about how our planet formed, for example, based on the evidence we see in the planet and in our Moon.

However, because we see these things and reach the conclusion that this is how our planet formed, that does not mean that this process was done without God-maybe that is the way He did it.

If a scientist happens to believe in intelligent creation, I see no contradiction. Take the Bible for example, there are a lot of things in there that are not completely explained and just because it appears to us that there may be a contradiction between intelligent creation and evolution, that doesn't mean there is one. The Bible asks us to focus on more important things anyway and I'm sure you don't need me to explain what they are.

[albear]

Albear,
evolution says that different changes develop over time and that is true to some extent (many different breeds of dogs- but none with wings or hoofs or scales and that cannot happen due to DNA)but there is a point of complexity that can't be bridged. The eye for example, composed of several different parts would not work at all unless all the different parts "evolved" at the same time. One of the examples in the movie was the bombardier beetle. It has 2 separate chambers in his body that hold two separate chemicals that individually are harmless but when mixed cause a small explosion. When threatened, he shoots out these 2 chemicals from each chamber at once and the explosion scares away a predator. Also, instead of a solid stream which would knock the beetle off his feet from the resulting explosion near him, he shoots a rapid fire sequence (like a machine gun) that lessons the "kick." If any part of this system wasn't developed all at the same time, the beetle would have exploded long before he could reproduce. (Just one example out of several)Darwin himself said about the eye, "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

The beetle colud have evolved to be that way, just because someone's says it couldn't doesn't meant that it couldn't.(same vice versa as well)

As for the eye, he may have thought it absurd, but so did everybody when the world was first said to be round.

[homesell]

Hello Jim,
There are scientists that believe in a literal 6 day creation. They are interviewed in the book, "50 scientists that Believe"
As you stated evolution is not science. We are in agreement.
They (evolutionists)are interpreting(speculating) on what they think might have happened based on what is present today. The media would like you to think that all scientists and intelligent people are in agreement about the interpretation of evidence. Far from it. There is plenty of contradictory evidence to what the mainstream believes. They make the same mistake that cults make when reading the Bible in that they first decide what it is they want to find, then find it, then ignore the evidence that contradicts what they found. Scientists, for example, are almost equally divided on the FOUR different theories of the origen of the moon.
Any scientist that tries to go against what is commonly believed is ostracised and can lose their position and grant money. If you get a chance, watch the movie put out by Ben Stein, a noted intellectual and non-christian, called "expelled: no intelligence allowed"
I use the term creation scientist to mean a scientist that believes in a 6 day creation. The same way I say an evolutionary scientist is a scientist that believes in evolution. They both are mutually exclusive since evolution is based on non-observable, non-repeatable events which also makes evolution non-scientific.
You would not believe how many assumptions go into each dating method method for the earth and how minuscule (sometimes just a tooth or a shinbone) some of the fossil evidence is. Artists interpretations are what the public goes by for the most part. IF there was a missing link between ape and man, where is the missing link between ape and whatever creature came before it? Scientists can't even figure out which animal the ape supposedly came from. And how come they never seem to unearth a true ape fossil?

[homesell]

Albear,
Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods. Creationists agree with this but it cannot be shown that one kind of animal can ever develop into another kind. In a million years of breeding, you would have a large variety of cats and dogs but you will never develop an animal that is half dog and half cat, and you'll never have a dog give birth to kittens or a cat give birth to puppies. Based on gradual changes, no matter how much time you give these changes, they just don't work unless they all come together at the same time. Natural selection(not the same as evolution) cannot favor these explosives chemicals forming together(explosion)there must be separate sacs. If both sides shot out in a stream again this would cause an explosion too near the beetle.
As for the eye, it is still absurd today to think of useless parts developing over time coming together to form a fully functioning eye.
By the way, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that ancient peoples knew the earth was round. The oldest book in the bible Job 26:& mentions the earth being suspended over nothing. Since the circular sun and the circular moon also was, this was reasonable. By 150 B.C. Eratosthenes already had actually measured the circumference of the earth. It was also apparent the earth was round by ships disappearing seemingly into the sea and then coming back and the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse.

[albear]

Albear,
Evolution is based on gradual changes over long periods of time. Creationists agree with this but it cannot be shown that one kind of animal can ever develop into another kind. In a million years of breeding, you would have a large variety of cats and dogs but you will never develop an animal that is half dog and half cat, and you'll never have a dog give birth to kittens or a cat give birth to puppies. Based on gradual changes, no matter how much time you give these changes, they just don't work unless they all come together at the same time. Natural selection(not the same as evolution) cannot favor these explosives chemicals forming together(explosion)there must be separate sacs. If both sides shot out in a stream again this would cause an explosion too near the beetle.
As for the eye, it is still absurd today to think of useless parts developing over time coming together to form a fully functioning eye.
By the way, there is plenty of evidence that suggests that ancient peoples knew the earth was round. The oldest book in the bible Job 26:& mentions the earth being suspended over nothing. Since the circular sun and the circular moon also was, this was reasonable. By 150 B.C. Eratosthenes already had actually measured the circumference of the earth. It was also apparent the earth was round by ships disappearing seemingly into the sea and then coming back and the shadow of the earth on the moon during an eclipse.

You can't breed cats and dogs, something to do with them having a different number of chromasomes, I don't know what your trying to say with that example.

But with breeding of cats, then you will get cats that are more adapt at certain things which is evolution.

I take it you know the finch example that darwin is quite famous for.

For the betle it seems that way, but what I don't think your getting is that certain things change to make it work, the ones that don't work yes will kill the beetles but the ones that do, those beetles will survive.

As for the eye, no its not, you have eyes don't you?

I'm not saying there wasn't evidence, just that people thought it was absurd when it was first suggested, like you quoted before