[_ Old Earth _] NCSE Laments TBOE Recent Decisions

[Barbarian]

I don't need to. Genesis CLEARLY states this.

It does? (Barbarian checks) Um no, it doesn't. In fact, until the last 30 years, most fundamentalists were OE creationists. It was the form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists began to spread their prophetess doctrines to mainline evangelicals was YE creationism popular.

 

[John]

It does? (Barbarian checks) Um no, it doesn't. In fact, until the last 30 years, most fundamentalists were OE creationists. It was the form of creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example. Only after the Seventh-Day Adventists began to spread their prophetess doctrines to mainline evangelicals was YE creationism popular

You said "Nor six literal days unless you impose."

And i said "don't need to. Genesis CLEARLY states this. It is inescapable, unavoidable. Like it or lump it"

Genesis sates that He made everything in six days if you still can't see it then maybe some reading classes would help out.

 

[Barbarian]

Most Christians disagree with you. Many of them are better readers, and many are better theologians.

Simply adding "literal" to scripture won't clear up the problems with such a re-interpretation.

 

[John]

What worse then an atheist? A "christian" who Deny's Gods word

 

[Barbarian]

What worse then an atheist? A "christian" who Deny's Gods word

Fortunately, you aren't God. So I can disagree with you, and not disagree with Him. And fortunately for you, accepting the way He created the diversity of life is not a salvation issue. So you can be saved, even as a YE creationist.

 

[John]

Anyone who willingly bastardizes God word to try to accept a worthless theory and claims to be christian needs a good fixin. But your right i am not God, I'll let Him show you when he returns.

 

[Gabe]

Gods Word is open to interpretation. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation can equally accuse you of the same. But this thread is meant for discussion, not accusations from either side. Lets keep it civil.

 

[Vic C.]

Gods Word is open to interpretation. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation can equally accuse you of the same. But this thread is meant for discussion, not accusations from either side. Lets keep it civil.

Agreed!

 

[John]

First, Christians are always to look for truth. Anything else would dishonor the very God in whom we profess to believe. Evolution and creation cannot both be true because they are mutually exclusive worldviews. One must be wrong if the other is right. How can we claim to be followers of the One who claimed to be "The Truth" if we aren't willing to search for the truth.

Second, Jesus Christ said that we could tell a tree by its fruit. Have you ever heard anyone sincerely state, "I'm glad I have learned the evidence for evolution. It has led me to the reality of God's love for me. Now that everything can be explained by random chance, I feel purpose and meaning in my life." On the other hand, many people confess that hearing the evidence for creation has strengthened their faith in God's existence, in His personal involvement with His creation, and in the Bible as God's revealed truth to mankind.

Third, the Bible is very clear that human behavior is tied closely to basic beliefs. Take time to read Romans 1:17-26. This passage states that because of the evidence of creation, no one has an excuse for disbelief in God. However, if God used evolution to bring everything about, then there is no evidence for God's existence from observing his creation, and this Bible passage is contradicted. The verses in Romans go on to list the results of denying God's existence: a society with wide spread homosexuality, greed, envy, murder, hatred toward the God of Christianity, and many other consequences. Does this sound like America today? The primary tie of the physical world to a spiritual God is the reality of creation. This is why the Bible equates belief in God with the acknowledgment of Him as creator . As any society accepts evolution as reality, the relevance of God decreases, and the tie to an absolute source of right and wrong is broken. The result is a drift toward humanism and the devaluation of human life.

Fourth, the Bible is very clear concerning God's method of creation and the history of our planet. Unlike the numerous creation stories from cultures all over the world, the Biblical creation account is precise, concise, and provides testable predictions concerning the world around us. For instance, the Bible describes humanity with a tendency toward evil and decline. This appears to be the case, because every society in the history of the world has ended in tragedy and bloodshed. Not one has lasted more than a few centuries. The Bible describes the creation of separate animal and plant "kinds". That is exactly what the fossil record shows.

 

[Barbarian]

Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation can equally accuse you of the same. But this thread is meant for discussion, not accusations from either side. Lets keep it civil.

Agreed!

Point taken. I'll be more careful.

 

[Crying Rock]

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? ...Please elaborate.

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.

You didn't answer my question.

And still have not, in any way, substantiated 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.

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

Let's see...

If there was a designer, then we'd expect even the first things to show signs of design and complexity. But we don't. The cell membrane, the one absolutely essential thing required for a cell is not only incredibly simple, it's self-assembling.

That makes no sense at all for ID, but it does make a lot of sense, if the world was made by a Creator, who made nature so that such things could develop naturally.

This one is perhaps one of the main reasons so few biochemists accept ID; it just doesn't fit the evidence. There are certainly other examples; would you like to learn about them?

 

[Crying Rock]

Let's see...

If there was a designer, then we'd expect even the first things to show signs of design and complexity. But we don't. The cell membrane, the one absolutely essential thing required for a cell is not only incredibly simple, it's self-assembling.

That makes no sense at all for ID, but it does make a lot of sense, if the world was made by a Creator, who made nature so that such things could develop naturally.

This one is perhaps one of the main reasons so few biochemists accept ID; it just doesn't fit the evidence. There are certainly other examples; would you like to learn about them?

I'm always open to learning new things, but lets try to come to a conclusion on this issue.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that cell membranes that currently envelop the internal elements of living cells existed prior to those internal elements. Is that correct?

If so, lets move onto my question:

Crying Rock wrote:
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? ...Please elaborate.

I want to make sure I'm understanding your argument correctly.

Rock

By the way, Good Friday!

 

[Barbarian]

If I understand you correctly, you believe that cell membranes that currently envelop the internal elements of living cells existed prior to those internal elements. Is that correct?

A basic phospholipid membrane had to exist prior to any cell, yes.

What is the simplest living (currently or previously) cell observed to date?

Do you think viruses are alive? They have many of the traits found in living things like replication. At least one even has a few genes for metabolic functions. On the other hand, artificial chemical systems have been developed that are more "alive" than viruses, since they are independently self-replicating.

Do you think nanobacteria are alive? It is not yet confirmed that they even have nucleic acids, and yet they reproduce as if they were any other sort of bacterium.

There is no agreed-upon definition of "alive" in science. So I'll need your definition. Simple coacervates, with limiting membranes and chemical reactions were first noted by A.I. Oparin before WWII.

Let me know what you think it is, and then I'll see what I can do for you.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you believe that cell membranes that currently envelop the internal elements of living cells existed prior to those internal elements. Is that correct?

Barbarian wrote:

A basic phospholipid membrane had to exist prior to any cell, yes.

Crying Rock wrote:

What is the simplest living (currently or previously) cell observed to date?

Barbarian wrote:

There is no agreed-upon definition of "alive" in science. So I'll need your definition.

Crying Rock wrote:

Actually, I'll need your defintion to evaluate how you substantiate this 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.

Rock

 

[Barbarian]

I'll allow you any biochemical system enclosed by a phospholipid membrane as life. If you'd like a more restrictive one, I'll grant you that. Doesn't matter. The membrane had to come first, and because of the extreme simplicity of that membrane, the claims of a designer (as opposed to a Creator) are impossible to support.

 

[Crying Rock]

I'll allow you any biochemical system enclosed by a phospholipid membrane as life. If you'd like a more restrictive one, I'll grant you that. Doesn't matter. The membrane had to come first, and because of the extreme simplicity of that membrane, the claims of a designer (as opposed to a Creator) are impossible to support.

How simple are these:

http://www.hilaroad.com/camp/projects/l ... ennies.jpg

http://www.boltdepot.com/images/Chrome/ ... ashers.jpg

http://milehidad.files.wordpress.com/20 ... c-wrap.jpg

Of course, none of these were designed.

 

[Barbarian]

How simple are these:

http://www.hilaroad.com/camp/projects/l ... ennies.jpg

http://www.boltdepot.com/images/Chrome/ ... ashers.jpg

http://milehidad.files.wordpress.com/20 ... c-wrap.jpg

All of them require considerably more information than the cell membrane. To understand why, read here:

I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand meâ€â€no, that's too much to ask of anyoneâ€â€if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher becauseâ€â€well, because I am seemingly so simple.

Simple? Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me. This sounds fantastic, doesn't it? Especially when it is realized that there are about one and one-half billion of my kind produced in the U.S.A. each year.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

Nails have a similar complexity. And yet, phospholipid molecules naturally assemble to form the basic cellular membrane.

The designed stuff you picked were amazingly complicated compared to a cell membrane.

Nature 266, 78 - 80 (03 March 1977); doi:10.1038/266078a0

Synthesis of phospholipids and membranes in prebiotic conditions

W. R. HARGREAVES, S. J. MULVIHILL & D. W. DEAMER

Department of Zoology, University of California, Davis, California 95616

IT is generally agreed that stable membranes were prerequisite to the assembly of the earliest self-replicating systems1−4. Phospholipids, which are ubiquitous in biological membranes and which self-assemble in aqueous environments into stable lipid bilayers and vesicles4, are obvious candidates for prebiotic membrane components. We report here the abiotic synthesis of various lipids, including membranogenic phospholipids.

 

[Crying Rock]

The designed stuff you picked were amazingly complicated compared to a cell membrane.

Can you make a living cell's membrane?

I know both of us can make nails and washers.

 

[Barbarian]

Can you make a living cell's membrane?

Yes, it's surprisingly easy. It's just a bilayer of phospholipid molecules.

I know both of us can make nails and washers.

Because pencils are designed they are rather complex. No person on earth can go to a store, buy a pencil and then make another one on his own.

Can't be done, because the process is too involved, and involves many people with many skills.

But any biochemist could make a cell membrane.