[_ Old Earth _] NCSE Laments TBOE Recent Decisions

[Crying Rock]

If so, what are those flaws?

One testable prediction is that the cell's earliest components should be very complex. But the opposite is true.

Please describe, in your opinion, the minimal components necessary to define a molecular structure as a cell.

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

variations yes, but isn't that faith that mere variations can change say a whale into a cow even over billions of years?

In the sense that it takes "faith" to believe that a giant redwood can grow from a tiny seed. We've never seen that happen, but there is enough evidence that it does, to make denial pointless.

 

[Barbarian]

Please describe, in your opinion, the minimal components necessary to define a molecular structure as a cell.

The first actual precursor to a cell would be a differentially-permeable membrane with chemical reactions occurring within it. So, as you learned a very simple membrane would be evidence for a natural origin of life, and a very complex basic membrane would be evidence for ID.

This is one of the major flaws in ID; it can't explain things like the cell membrane.

 

[Crying Rock]

Please describe, in your opinion, the minimal components necessary to define a molecular structure as a cell.

The first actual precursor to a cell would be a differentially-permeable membrane with chemical reactions occurring within it. So, as you learned a very simple membrane would be evidence for a natural origin of life, and a very complex basic membrane would be evidence for ID.

This is one of the major flaws in ID; it can't explain things like the cell membrane.

But you didn't answer my question:

Please describe, in your opinion, the minimal components necessary to define a molecular structure as a cell.

 

[Barbarian]

I answered you question, just not the answer you wanted to hear. Tell me how you define "cell" vs. "precursor of a cell" by structures, and I'll show you.

The simplist concievable cell would be a cell membrane with chemicals enclosed by it.

Would you call that a cell? If not, why not?

If yes, then we can stop. Otherwise, we'll go on a bit, until we get to where you want to go. We'll just note that the cell membrane makes no sense in terms of ID. Would you like to learn what comes next?

Let me know.

 

[Crying Rock]

We'll just note that the cell membrane makes no sense in terms of ID. Would you like to learn what comes next?

Do you want to substantiate your claim:

I don't think they're going to like how this plays out in the classroom. The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

If so, then please contunue.

 

[Barbarian]

(Crying Rock refuses to say what would constitute a cell)

Barbarian observes:
We'll just note that the cell membrane makes no sense in terms of ID. Would you like to learn what comes next?

Do you want to substantiate your claim:

Already have. The first necessary part of the cell is the simplest part. Exactly the opposite of what you'd expect from a designer, but precisely what you'd expect from a Creator. They will likely be sorry that opened that discussion.

If you'd be willing to tell me what you think the simplest cell would be, I can help you with your other question.

If, on the other hand, you think you don't want to open that door, feel free to ignore me, or to make another excuse.

 

[Crying Rock]

(Crying Rock refuses to say what would constitute a cell)

Barbarian observes:
We'll just note that the cell membrane makes no sense in terms of ID. Would you like to learn what comes next?

Do you want to substantiate your claim:

Already have. The first necessary part of the cell is the simplest part. Exactly the opposite of what you'd expect from a designer, but precisely what you'd expect from a Creator. They will likely be sorry that opened that discussion.

If you'd be willing to tell me what you think the simplest cell would be, I can help you with your other question.

If, on the other hand, you think you don't want to open that door, feel free to ignore me, or to make another excuse.

So I'll take that as you either won't or can't substatiate your claim:

The Barbarian wrote:
I don't think they're going to like how this plays out in the classroom. The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

Unless you claim pointing out an alleged precursor membrane "will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims" concerning the complexity of the cell .

Is this Wiki entry fairly correct concerning what constitutes a cell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)

Or do you have a differing opinion?

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian points out that a "designed" cell should be as complex in the most basic parts as it is in less essential parts, and because this is not true, ID cannot adequately explain a cell)

So I'll take that as you either won't or can't substatiate your claim:

I think it's too late for you to try denial. Why would the most important parts of the cell be the simplest?

Unless you claim pointing out an alleged precursor membrane "will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims" concerning the complexity of the cell .

It's not a precursor membrane. It's the one you have in every cell in your body. And yet it's astonishingly simple, a bilayer of phospholipid molecules that spontaneously form a closed cell. Why would a "designer" use something that could form naturally?

The cell in your Wiki article is a far cry from the earliest cells. They were much, much simpler, as some of them are still today. Even mycoplasmas are simpler than the cells described in your Wiki.

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:
The cell in your Wiki article is a far cry from the earliest cells. They were much, much simpler, as some of them are still today. Even mycoplasmas are simpler than the cells described in your Wiki.

So how does this substantiate your claim:

The Barbarian wrote:
I don't think they're going to like how this plays out in the classroom. The issue of the complexity of the cell will allow science teachers to undercut ID's claims.

What is the simplest living (currently or previously) cell observed to date? What are the components of that cell: A precursor membrane with random chemicals contained within? That's all that you, "the teacher", have taught me so far. Please elaborate.

The Barbarian wrote:

The simplist concievable cell would be a cell membrane with chemicals enclosed by it.

 

[Barbarian]

The simplest known cells today are nanobacteria. They may not even be alive as we count living things. They have cell membranes, but so far are not known to have nucleic acids. They do have some metabolic functions, however.

Janetta V. Korneva
(1) Department of Ecological Parasitology, Institute for Biology of Inland Waters RAS, 152742 Borok, Yaroslavl, Russia

Accepted: 17 April 2008 Published online: 14 September 2008
Abstract The teguments of four cestode species (Triaenophorus nodulosus, Proteocephalus torulosus, P. percae, P. cernuae) and the intestines of their freshwater fish hosts (Esox lucius, Barbatula barbatula, Perca fluviatilis, Gymnocephalus cernuus) inhabited by bacteria have been investigated with scanning electron microscopy. Most of the bacteria have sizes very similar to nanobacteria (that is, 0.25–0.3 μm in diameter). At least 4 microbial morphotypes were identified. These observations indicate that the normal indigenous microflora in cestodes and their fish hosts, associated with the digestive transport surfaces and consist of bacteria and nanobacteria.

And then there is:

The mimivirus genome is a linear, double-stranded molecule of DNA roughly 1.2 million base pairs in length. This makes it the largest viral genome in scientific knowledge, outstripping the next-largest virus genome of the myovirus Bacillus phage G by a little over double. In addition, it is larger than at least 30 cellular clades.

In addition to the large size of the genome, mimivirus possesses an estimated 911 protein-coding genes, far exceeding the minimum 4 genes required for viruses to exist (c.f. MS2 and Qβ viruses).[7] Analysis of its genome revealed the presence of genes not seen in any other viruses, including aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, and other genes previously thought only to be encoded by cellular organisms. Like other large DNA viruses, mimivirus contains several genes for sugar, lipid and amino acid metabolism, as well as some metabolic genes not found in any other virus.[5] Roughly 90% of the genome was of coding capacity, with the other 10% being “junk DNAâ€Â.

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

This is very odd; viruses should not have such genes, since they don't have their own metabolism. They borrow the metabolism of host cells. But this one does. This, in itself is a huge problem if one assumes a "designer."

 

[John]

Its not hard to see a designer at all. First God made everything and gave the ability to adapt to their environment i fail to see why a small shift is any problem for a designer? In fact it just goers to show his genius.

 

[Barbarian]

If you're willing to grant God that much power, why not just let Him do it all His way?

You'd have a good deal of tradition and Scriptural support for that. St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, wrote that Scripture showed God created the universe with the capacity for all things to develop from that initial creation.

Genesis says that the Earth brought forth living things as God intended.

 

[John]

If you're willing to grant God that much power, why not just let Him do it all His way?

I do. Its not like i have a say

You'd have a good deal of tradition and Scriptural support for that. St. Augustine, about 1500 years ago, wrote that Scripture showed God created the universe with the capacity for all things to develop from that initial creation.

No argument here. God made everything like he said and it went on and developed from there.

Genesis says that the Earth brought forth living things as God intended.

Yes and it still brings forth to this day. God also said he made all in 6 days THAT is an unavoidable Scriptural fact.

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis also says that God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, and yet Adam lives on for many years thereafter. So we know "day" did not mean literal days in Genesis.

 

[John]

This was just discussed in the Theology forum.

Hebrew for "day"

The Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis 1 is "yome" (Strong's 03117). It can mean a 24-hour day or the daylight portion of it (day as distinct from the night).

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament, the word "yome" is never used to refer to a long period of time, as in thousands or millions of years.

In Hebrew, should the word "yome" be used in an indefinite sense, it will be clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning is not intended.



First-time use not symbolic

Some people say that the word "day" in Genesis is used symbolically.

This is impossible as a word cannot be symbolic the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically if it first has a literal meaning.

For example, we are told that Jesus is the "bread of life". We know what this means because we understand the literal meaning of "bread", and are able to apply it symbolically to Jesus. The word "bread" cannot be used in this sense unless it first has a literal meaning.

Likewise, the word "day" cannot be used symbolically the first time it appears in Genesis, as this is where God introduced the word "day" and defined it as He created it.

Some might argue that this point is flawed because Job is an earlier book, in the sense that Job lived before the time of Moses. But this is to imply that the Holy Spirit was outdated when He inspired Moses to write Genesis, and that He made a mistake when He put Genesis as the first book of the Bible.



The Bible itself defines "day"

Many Christians forget that the Holy Spirit himself has defined the word "day" the first time it appears in the Bible. A basic rule of thumb in Bible study is to let the Bible interpret the Bible.

Genesis 1:5
5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.

The first time the word "day" is used, it is defined as "the light" to distinguish it from "the darkness" called "night".

The phrase, "and there was evening, and there was morning", is used for each of the other five days of creation. This shows that there was a clearly established cycle of days and nights (periods of light and periods of darkness).

Incidentally, those who argue that the word "day" in the above verse means millions of years must answer the question, "What is a night?"



Daylight without the sun?

But how could there be day and night when the sun was not created yet, until day four?

The word for "light" in Genesis 1:3 means the "substance" of light that was created. Then, on day four in Genesis 1:14-19, we are told of the creation of the sun, which was to be the source of light henceforth.

The sun was created to rule the day that already existed. The day merely had a new light source.

Perhaps God deliberately left the creation of the sun to the fourth day to show that He is the light, the source of life and the sustainer of life, because He knew that man would one day worship the sun as the source of life.



Problems with taking "day" to mean millions of years

Our seven-day week


Exodus 20:9 tells us that we are to work for six days and rest for one. This is why we have a seven-day week.

Exodus 20:9
9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

The reason for this is found in verse 11:

Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

This is a direct reference to God's creation week in Genesis 1. To be consistent, whatever is used as the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1 must also be used here.

So, if we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, then we should do the same for Exodus 20:11, which would make nonsense of our seven-day week. We don't work for six million years and then rest for 1 million years!

What are "years" and "seasons" then?

Genesis 1:14
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,

If the word "day" here is not to be taken literally, then, to be consistent in our interpretation, neither should the words "seasons", "days" and "years". What do they mean then?

Likewise, we are told in Genesis 1:26-31 that God made Adam on the sixth day. We know that Adam lived through the rest of the sixth day and through the seventh day. Genesis 5:5 says that he died when he was 930 years old.

If we take "day" in Genesis 1 to mean millions of years, how do we understand Adam's lifespan of "930 years"? What is a "year"? Or, for that matter, a "night", a "week", a "month"?

Covenant with day and night

Jeremiah 33:25,26
25 This is what the Lord says: 'If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth,
26 then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.' "

God's "covenant with day and night" began in Genesis 1. There is no clear origin and definition for day and night in the Bible other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be where the covenant began.

However, this covenant would make no sense and be on shaky ground if "day" is not taken literally in Genesis 1. And, again, what would "night" mean?



A day as a thousand years?

2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Psalm 90:4
4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

The two verses are used by many to teach that the days in Genesis must each be a thousand years long.

But the verses are not saying that God defines a "day" as "a thousand years". That would contradict His original definition in Genesis 1:5. Also, note that the word "like" is used.

In both cases, the truth being presented is that God is neither limited by natural processes nor by time. The Creator of time is not bound by time.

Also, neither verse refers to the days of creation in Genesis. In 2 Peter 3, the context is Christ's second coming. In Psalm 90, the context is Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and the mortality of man.

The verses also indicate that God, not bounded by time, can do in a very short time what men or nature would require a very long time to accomplish, if they could succeed at all.

Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man. Many Christians have accepted this by saying that God took millions of years to create, which is the very opposite of what 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4 are saying.

 

[Barbarian]

It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.

In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm

Interestingly, evolutionists say that the chance, random processes of nature required millions of years to produce living things and man.

That's completely wrong. Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance.

 

[John]

It is interesting to note that in 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." For instance, in Genesis 4:3, it says "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." In this instance, Yom refers to a growing season, probably several months. Again, in Deuteronomy 10:10, it refers to a "time" equal to forty days. In I Kings 11:42, it says "And the time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was forty years." In this case, Yom translated as the word "time" is equivalent to a 40 year period.

In Isaiah 30:8, it says "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever." In this case, Yom is equal to "forever." How long is forever? An infinite number of years...billions upon billions upon billons of years. If Yom can equal trillions of years here, then why not billions of years in Genesis?
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm.

But nothing relative to billions of years unless you impose.

 

[Barbarian]

But nothing relative to billions of years unless you impose.

Nor six literal days unless you impose.

 

[John]

But nothing relative to billions of years unless you impose.

Nor six literal days unless you impose.

I don't need to. Genesis CLEARLY states this. It is inescapable, unavoidable. Like it or lump it.