Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I may believe this has some relevance to the topic in question, and some credibility, if you can provide statistics that demonstrate most scientists
- Have a good grasp of the intricate workings of the cell
- Can provide a scientific explanation of how the first originated
- Believe that this was actually how the cell originated
Till then, we must dismiss this as yet another rant from a TE stooge.
The relevance of my claim to your point doesn't depend on your skewed request.
It can be demonstrated that Christians come to the same scientific conclusions as atheists. Your post tried to make it seem like this wasn't true. Your post was based on a false premise and it can be demonstated that it was incorrect.
Thanks for playing.
Why is evolution taught at Christian universities while ID for the most part isn't?
That you call my factual claim that a huge majority of scientists from all faiths come to the same conclusion that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. a rant is telling as well.
Apparently anything you disagree with or that points out the flaws of your reasoning is a 'rant' no matter how true it is.
Christian scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution. Deal with it.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. aclufightsforchristians com
NEWSFLASH: Today, 6,000,000 teachers in the US didn't do anything illegal
The 'way science works' depends on whether you are a Christian or an athiest.
no it doesn't. science works the same no matter what religion (or lack thereof) you believe. the scientific method relies on hypotheses being testable because they make falsifiable predictions.
If you are an athiest, you must come up with an explanation, regardless of how improbable it seems, for the origin of the cell without reference to God.
science is not just about explaining the first cell. and how, pray tell, can we reference god and still have a testable hypothesis? please give an example.
The Christian does not have these philosophical constraints. If the cell appears to be the work of an omniscient Creator, he is free to accept this.
anyone is free to accept this. they cannot, however, accept it on a scientific basis, because this is not a testable claim.
Gaining new insights into the wonder of God's handiwork is a powerful motivation for the Christian researcher.
you do know that the majority of christian researchers accept evolution and reject ID as unscientific, right?
*Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin said "unfortunately the form of the cell is the darkest part of the theory evolution".(origin of life, page 196)
* President of Biyochemistry Institute in Johannes Gutenburg University Prof. Dr. Klaus Dose said
"In spite of the consistent efforts, there have been no invention that could explain the formation of the living cells".
(Klaus Dose, "The Origin Of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, page 352)
the cell is a miracle itself...not just as simple as you name it...jeky said
People, people.
When ever you see a creationist quoting a scientist you will be correct 99.99% (see a statistic!) to assume that they have given one that is out of date, or out of context, or just a plain fabrication/lie.
Take Oparin for example. This book, Origin of Life was written in 1936, and the first English translation was published in 1938 (my copy is the 1953 paperback). When it was written scientists did not even know what a virus was, or what the structure of a single protein was.
We have learned a lot! Can I suggest the challenge to explain the cells origin is getting harder, the more we learn. The complexity and intricasy clearly points to an Intelligent Designer, to God the Creator, if you are prepared to accept this possibility.
__________________ Micaiah
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. dir="ltr">
And Micaiah said, "As the LORD lives, whatever the LORD says to me, that I will speak." (1 Kings 22:14)
Oh look ! Its another edition of...Creationist Quotemine !
Originally Posted by jeki
*Russian evolutionist A. I. Oparin said "unfortunately the form of the cell is the darkest part of the theory evolution".(origin of life, page 196)
Oparin's book, Origin of Life, came out in 1924. Thats over 80 years ago. You don't think we've learned something about the cell since then? He was one of the two people who proposed the hypothesis that was tested in the Miller experiment - low oxygen content of the atmosphere, etc.
In the meantime, though, a young Russian biochemist named Aleksandr Oparin gave a lecture on the origins of life in 1922, published as a booklet in 1924, that was to have a major impact on future research and ideas. To his ideas and the work that followed until the present day, we now turn.
Oparin's book The Origin of Life in 1924, in which he proposed a chemical theory of the origin of life, was not published in English until 1936.
* President of Biyochemistry Institute in Johannes Gutenburg University Prof. Dr. Klaus Dose said
"In spite of the consistent efforts, there have been no invention that could explain the formation of the living cells".
(Klaus Dose, "The Origin Of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, page 352)
Dr. Klaus Dose has made objections regarding the Miller experiment as not being valid (due to composition of the atmosphere) and stating that current theories regarding abiogenesis are not complete or not correct. He repeated Miller's experiment, and got different results. He is stating that current theories of abiogenesis are incorrect, not all theories, as you'd like. A quotemine at its best.
__________________
"Afterlife? Pfft. If I'd thought I had to go through a whole 'nother life, I'd kill myself right now." -Bender, Futurama
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Nicole King, Christopher T. Hittinger, and Sean B. Carroll 2003 "Evolution of Key Cell Signaling and Adhesion Protein Families Predates Animal Origins" Science 301: 361-363 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1083853] (in Reports)
Or this one:
Sabrina D. Dyall, Mark T. Brown, and Patricia J. Johnson 2004 "Ancient Invasions: From Endosymbionts to Organelles" Science 2004 304: 253-257 [DOI: 10.1126/science.1094884] (in Review)
Compare their conclusion with the OP quotes:
Conclusion
Ancient eubacterial invasions gave rise to mitochondria and plastids and had an enormous impact on eukaryogenesis and the metabolism and homeostasis of eukaryotes. Although genomic analyses indicate that specific endosymbionts gave birth to these organelles, proteomics reveal a surprisingly large contribution from the host, multiple symbioses, and/or horizontal gene transfers. These studies attest to the flexibility of the eukaryotic cell while simultaneously revealing the conservation of mechanisms underlying the evolution of plastids, mitochondria, and derived organelles. Common mechanisms for protein translocation exist, yet specific targeting signals, translocation mechanisms, and retention of organellar-specific proteins have permitted the cohabitation of mitochondria and plastids. Despite considerable advances in our understanding of organelle evolution and biogenesis, future genomic and proteomic analyses promise to accelerate our understanding of these vital features of eukaryotic cells.
The complexity and intricasy clearly points to an Intelligent Designer, to God the Creator, if you are prepared to accept this possibility.
I don't see how this follows.
My computer is pretty darn complex. I would call it IC even. Any suggestions of how it "could" have been created are simply speculation by dogmatic computerists. Thus, the most logical conclusion is that it was made by an invisible man in the sky who fields other legions of invisible men to do his invisible work.
Linear Mode
