This is the product of my intelligent Heavenly Father not natural selection with random "chance" mutations over millions of years. I can't wait for the day the Lord returns, then evolution will truly be the greatest hoax (or lie) that ever was told.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Complexity Of The Cell - Simple? Yeah right...
I'm always amazed to still hear people say the words "Simple Cell" or "Simple Organism" These were the words used in Darwin's day around 150 years ago. If you are conversing with anyone and they begin to say something like this, stop them dead in their tracks and let them know just how complex, intricate and complicated the cell really is...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
- Don't expect to surprise a biological scientists with the idea that the cell is complex. They have learned about all this in great detail. It's irrelevant what Darwin knew about the cell; scientists today know much more about the cell AND evolution is an even more accepted part of biological science than it was 150 years ago.
- In fact, all the new knowledge about molecular biology and genetics that developed in the last 40 years was rooted in biology that had evolution as its foundation.
- And the new knowledge of molecular biology has further supported and expanded evolutionary knowledge.
- For example, the mitochondria, cellular organelles which supply a lot of the cell's energy, are now thought to be remnants of ancient bacteria which were engulfed by early cells and gradually gave up their independence, transferring part of their DNA to the DNA in the cell nucleus, but still retaining a part of the primitive circular DNA in the mitochondria.
- For myself, when I learn about some of the many molecular features of the cell, the complexity is amazing - but it begins to seem more like the complexity of heaped up, jumbled accumulations of different approaches, rather than any kind of clear organized plan.
- (And by the way, that bit of cell animation - was that a part of the animation that Ben Stein put in his movie without getting permission from the people who had produced that animation?)
No need for Joe to respond.
Scripture pretty much sums it up:
Romans 1:20-22
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Scientists look at what is there to see. They report on what they see. What is in the bible is not relevant to what scientists see. If God created things so that they appear different from what is in the Bible, that is not the scientists' problem. They are not supposed to report untruthfully. They observe what is there.
The Bible has no part in scientific observation any more than it has a part in the rules of a sports game or in the recipe for cake. There is no detailed science information in the bible.
Back when Darwin was born, the scientists of those times didn't know how organic molecules were made. They thought there must be some life force involved that only living things had.
(The Bible said nothing specific about organic molecules.)
Then someone figured out how to make urea, an organic molecule. But they still thought maybe some life force was involved in 'ferments', chemical reactions carried out by things like yeast.
(The Bible said nothign specific about how yeasts fermented sugars.)
Then around the beginning of the 1900s they figured out that molecules called enzymes which were made of protein were involved in those fermentations and other reactions.
But some people thought the protein was only a carrier for some life force.
(The Bible said nothing specific about protein molecules and how they could be catalysts.)
Then scientists figured out how enzymes worked and how they got their energy from the cell: no outside 'life force' was needed. It was purely a chemical reaction. Later in the 50s, they figured out about DNA, and then they knew how enzymes were made by the cells.
(The Bible said nothing about the genetic code.)
At least one enzyme has been made completely by chemical means (maybe more, but it is difficult (or was in the past) because they are such large molecules). An easier way to produce enzymes is to program the information into DNA and put it in a bacterial cell and let the bacteria churn out large amounts of a particular enzyme protein.
Now we understand very specifically many of the thousands of reactions that go on in cells. Back 200 years ago it was just one mystery - life force or ferment. Now the biochemistry of thousands of enzymes is known. It is possible to diagnose a genetic disease when an enzyme has mutated. It is possible to produce certain enzymes to do various chemical jobs.
All along there were things that were not understood. There are still things that are not understood. At what point in the past should scientists have thrown their hands in the air and said it was just God's mystery? If they had, our knowledge would be so much less. It seems like you want them to stop now and say it's all a big mystery. But that's not the rules of science. Science keeps on trying to puzzle things out based on what they can observe and logically figure out. The Bible cannot be part of that. It says nothing about enzymes. It says nothing about echolocation. It doesn't say what a 'kind' is. The days of creation do not match up with geology or astronomy. So science has to keep puzzling away at what is there. If what God wrote into the creation (in your view) is different from what God wrote into the Bible, that is not the scientists' problem. Scientists, whether they believe in God or not, are trying to read what is written in creation.
If you want to see clearly what is in creation, you have to rely on the work of scientists - who do the best they can with what they can observe at time, even though they don't have all the answers. If they couldn't work with incomplete knowledge, and draw incomplete conclusions, they would still been looking at a cell with no idea what was inside it.
highdesert,
Once again your argument is full of great misconceptions and fallacies.
For one I highly doubt you have read the bible and thus can't make a statement like "What is in the bible is not relevant to what scientists see" etc...
It is like me saying "Quantum Physics has nothing to say about........." I have not read a book or any authoritative paper on it (not that I would even be able to understand it if I could :)
However,
As mentioned many times before in my posts; the bible is not a science book so of course it will not discuss protein molecules and enzymes etc... But when it does touch on science it is scientifically accurate. This is show that there is great validation in the scriptures.
"To say that the model of Darwinian evolution is an established fact is wrong. A growing number of scientists are abandoning evolution for the biblical creation model instead because it better explains the evidence in the world around us. More and more scientific discoveries are revealing how inadequate the model of evolution really is" - Rev. Dale Shunk
In addition I have posted the scientific facts that the bible has mentioned thousands of years before scientist discovered them. You just choose to ignore or not believe them. I can't do anything about that. However, I can point to it's accuracy and reliability over the years. And if the bible has been trustworthy and reliable in speaking about past events, it most likely will be accurate when speaking of future events.
I think when it all comes down to it, your presupposition is so strong you will never be able to see anything from the creation model point of view, I have been open to hearing both sides of the debate since 2002, I have even put the evolutionary goggles on so as to see the evidence the way you and others do. And it was only after that, that I was able to come to a reasonable conclusion. There is design, so there must be a designer. You seem to me as one who would stare at a picture in all it's brilliance like the Mona Lisa and spend the rest of your life trying to figure out how it could of come about by natural processes. Never once considering that there might be a painter who painted with passion and thought. When you say there is no God you are being highly irrational. You are staring at the building which is proof that there was a builder and are saying "there was no builder" That would be highly irrational for someone to say wouldn't it? Well that is what you are doing when you look at the creation and say there is no creator.
Thanks for your comments
You're right, I haven't read the Bible. (I thought I'd start a program of reading the Bible in a year this January from an online site, but after a week I forgot I was doing it.) Howver I've read some of the Bible, and was a Christian when i was growing up.
I think the Rev. Dale Shunk was engaging in wishful thinking in that quote. My experience and reading says it is incorrect.
Joe, you said this...
"In addition I have posted the scientific facts that the bible has mentioned thousands of years before scientist discovered them. You just choose to ignore or not believe them"
Well, I wasn't going to go into it because I was trying to be polite, but really, didn't you think those examples were kind of lame and unconvincing?
Like the one about the life being in the blood. Don't you think any ancient culture would have figured out that you died if you lost too much blood? What about the Masai, who bled their cattle for food and knew enough not to take too much? And there are other things as necessary to life as blood, like air or a beating heart. There's no impressive information in that verse, just a common sense observation.
Or the air having weight - you can feel the force of the wind.
Or the earth being a circle. Circle doesn't have to mean sphere. You stand on a high place and look at land around you - it's a circle.
Or the one about the stars being different - the author put in a disclaimer about how the early people would have noticed some faint difference but the author wouldn't have expected them to claim the stars differed. Well, why on earth not? For instance there were ancient myths about different stars - like the Pleiades. Or Orion's Belt. Anyone can see that certain stars are different in brightness. It doesn't take a telescope for that.
And the idea that each animal reproduces according to its kind - seriously, this is supposed to be something more than the observation of a farming people? You think the ancient Hebrew people were the only ones who noticed that sheep gave birth to lambs? This is supposed to make the Bible seem more believable than something written by any other culture of that time?
And with the short simple descriptive phrases in these examples, how can you tell when the author is being poetic or using metaphors?
No, not at all. I think it's just unconvincing to you because of the language being used in all it's simplicity.
you said "Like the one about the life being in the blood. Don't you think any ancient culture would have figured out that you died if you lost too much blood?"
A careful study of history will show, especially in George Washington's day that if one was sick all you had to do was "blood let" meaning get rid of the bad blood and you will be ok. so you would go to your local bloodletting parlor and get this done, this is the true origin of the barber sign. The sign was present so people would know where to go to get rid of the infected blood
Excerpt:
"In the past, ignorance of blood’s value caused some “learned” men to do tragic things. For instance, during the middle ages, and even until the nineteenth century, doctors believed that harmful “vapors” entered the blood and caused sickness. For this reason, leeches were applied to victims of fever and other illnesses in an attempt to draw out blood containing these vapors. Also, the veins and arteries located just above the elbow were opened, and the patient’s arms were bled to expunge the contaminated blood. George Washington, the first President of the United States, died because of such misplaced medical zeal."
- by Kyle Butt, M.A.
you said "And there are other things as necessary to life as blood, like air or a beating heart."
Now that's funny coming from you since you believe in evolution. the question remains then, how did the first organisms and/or intermediates survive without these things you claim needs to be present for life ie. blood, air and a beating heart? Dare I go further and say arteries and vessels to carry the blood to and fro? etc...
you said "Or the air having weight - you can feel the force of the wind."
it was not always believed that air had weight, in fact it was thought to believe that the opposite, that air was weightless. Don't let the hindsight you have now fool you, not everyone believed this.
it was believed at one point that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It was believed at one point that the sun revolved around the earth and to believe otherwise would be heresy by the Roman Catholic church.
you said "Or the earth being a circle. Circle doesn't have to mean sphere. You stand on a high place and look at land around you -it's a circle."
you are being unreasonable now. It is clear from history that people used to believe in a flat earth. Christopher Columbus made his voyage because his bible taught him that the earth was a sphere. Read "the light and the glory" for more info. In addition, it used to be thought the world was held up by and on the back of a turtle. And as far as scripture goes, within it's context, it meant a round circle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
Same thing with the stars, it would have never have been conceived thousands of years ago by the naked eye that every single star in the sky was different and that no two stars were alike. I think you are assuming too much because of the knowledge and hindsight you now have.
these things weren't even a thought "hundreds" of years ago, yet the bible mentions them "thousands" of years ago.
you also said "And the idea that each animal reproduces according to its kind - seriously, this is supposed to be something more than the observation of a farming people? You think the ancient Hebrew people were the only ones who noticed that sheep gave birth to lambs? This is supposed to make the Bible seem more believable than something written by any other culture of that time?"
Again, odd that you agree with this, but believe evolution to be true which theorizes that one animal came from a completely different animal even though this has not been observed and can't be done today. dogs do not produce non-dogs and cats do not produce non-cats etc... The greatest thing evolutionists love to do is point to micro evolution and speciation and then say "see the little changes and adaptations?" which Christians don't argue with, and then assume that macro evolution is true because of millions of years is to be assumed. Im sorry this is not science, it's pure speculation. It fails to be called science by it's very definition. Macro Evo is not observable, demonstrable or repeatable. but I supposed you will just call upon your god "time" (millions of years) and something like that of a co-worker of mine once said "it happens so slow you can't see it" hmmm.....
And finally you said "And with the short simple descriptive phrases in these examples, how can you tell when the author is being poetic or using metaphors?"
it is simple, you first and foremost read it "within it's context" then you can do a simple exegetical and hermeneutical reading of the scripture if you are serious about determining it's contextual meaning.
Joe
Yes, the bleeding was horrble and misguided. But what did they do on the battlefields at that same time in history? Did they try to bandage bleeding wounds to stop the bleeding or did they let people bleed to death because blood was of no value? I don't think there was ever a time when people thought blood wasn't necessary to life. The doctors of that particular time period got the idea that there could be too much of it, and they went way too far. The Masai cattle raisers were wiser. I still say the bible verse was just common sense.
And when I said a beating heart was necessary for life, I meant human life and mammal life etc. Obviously a heart is not necessary for a bacteria or many small organisms - now or in the past. Some bacteria don't need oxygen.
I'd have to go read up on the evolution of the heart; I don't remember at the moment.
That's all for now.
>" Im sorry this is not science, it's pure speculation."
Funny how the actual scientists consider it science.
So by your logic, whatever the majority is of, then it must be true? Now we know this isn't true. In addition you are implying in some way that all scientist believe in evolution. This is simply not true either. There are many scientist who reject the theory (secular & Christian) simply because of the lack of evidence and the fact that true science is/goes against it. I won't reinvent the wheel, so you can read this article which makes the point.
Excerpt;
Although pro-evolution, the NSES has some very specific criteria they promote in regards to the nature of scientific knowledge.
‘Science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing and from other bodies of knowledge through the use of empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.’
‘Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. First and foremost, they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, and must make accurate predictions, when appropriate, about systems being studied.’
‘They should also be logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, report methods and procedures, and make knowledge public.’
‘Explanations on how the natural world changes based on myths, personal beliefs, religious values, mystical inspiration, superstition, or authority may be personally useful and socially relevant, but they are not scientific.’3
From this we can make a short list according to their criteria of what ‘science’ involves.
1-Observational data
2-Accurate predictions
3-Logical
4-Open to criticism
5-Accurate information
6-No presuppositions
Now, let’s apply these criteria to the ‘theory’ of evolution.
I think if you or anyone reads the article, you will see that evolutionary theory fails to be of the very definition of science. Real science points to the Creator.
Is evolution scientific? (by Creation on the web)
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6155/
@Jsirianni7:
From reading your blog, I am left with the impression that you read much to confirm your views but have read little that is in favor of evolution. You do not seem to understand or respect evolution as a theory. Really, the people who believe it are not as foolish as you seem to think they are.
I will recommend for you an article from Dawkins. Yes, I understand he has himself so much wrapped up in extreme Darwinism it makes him view everything as a process of evolution, and he is a self-described "militant atheist." In that respect, he is overextended evolution to everything, which is tragic folly. But, in spite of his extremism and his mockery, one must admit that he knows his stuff when it comes to the science of evolution.
Please carefully read and consider this article by Dawkins, where he explains why evolution is more than a theory:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article5707143.ece
I would also encourage you to read some recent, authoritative book explaining why the scientific community insists evolution is true. I mean a pro-evolution book. By my observation, anti-evolutionists have a bad habit of setting up straw men while never really confronting the strengths of Darwinism.
The majority of the Bib1e is historically true. However, the very beginning of Gen is a unique, inspired myth that teaches us great truths about human nature. Belief in evolution does not mean denying the Bib1e as the Word. Do not take my word for it. Earnestly seek His confirmation, and He will guide you. When I had doubts about ID, I earnestly asked Him to lead me to the truth, and this is where I found myself.
Peace.
Post a Comment