How the Smallest Cells Give Big Evidence for a Creator

[Subduction Zone]

The specific problems addressed in the OP (which have been ignored by ID opponents in this discussion) include:

1. The ability to produce a genome (a set of bps in DNA) needed for the very smallest possible living cell.

Why do you think that that is a problem?

2. The ability to provide all the cellular machinery necessary to process such a genome without the the genome. The cellular machinery depends on the genome and the genome depends on the cellular machinery.

Actually that claim has been largely refuted.

3. Or, more modestly, the ability to produce a string of bps in DNA capable of producing even ONE average sized biologically functional protein. Many such proteins are needed for even the simplest reproducing life, and without reproducing life there is no evolution.

Talk to a specialist. It has probably been done.

So all that you have is an argument form ignorance. You have no evidence for your claims. Thanks for letting us know that.

 

[Mark Corbett]

The point was that you are conflating abiogenesis and evolution. It does not matter what the original source of life was for evolution.

Googling "abiogenesis" results in the following definition at the top of the page:

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun
noun: abiogenesis
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.​

Obviously, I am not alone in viewing abiogenesis as the first big step of evolution.

However, even if you disagree with Google's definition, abiogenesis is a NECESSARY precursor to unguided evolution. Unless you believe that God created the first cell and then evolution took over. But you have not argued for that view. Nor will I, since it has many problems of its own.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Kenny, if you had actually tried to learn you might know what evidence is by now.

Didn't I ask for your evidence of that claim a looong time ago? But wait, you're stating it as a fact...were is the proof for that fact.

And on top of your short comings there, the "you don't understand" defense, as I've said many times before, is getting old, just another means of stalling. Plus it has one more important attribute. It's like the "science proves nothing" claim. ..you buy that and scientists now have to prove nothing. You make the "you don't understand claim" and anything you say is right, your opposition just doesn't understand it. And folks, those are just a couple of the many tricks used to create their evolution delusion.

Sorry, just a little too convenient, not to mention, they are so yesterday, come up with some new ones....puleeeze.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Googling "abiogenesis" results in the following definition at the top of the page:

a·bi·o·gen·e·sis
ˌābīōˈjenəsəs/
noun
noun: abiogenesis
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.​

Obviously, I am not alone in viewing abiogenesis as the first big step of evolution.

However, even if you disagree with Google's definition, abiogenesis is a NECESSARY precursor to unguided evolution. Unless you believe that God created the first cell and then evolution took over. But you have not argued for that view. Nor will I, since it has many problems of its own.

That is not "Google's definition". That is a definition and not a scientific one.

Yes, an abiogenesis event is necessary for evolution to take place for evolution. So what? I thought that the topic was evolution.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis that is a different topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't I ask for your evidence of that claim a looong time ago? But wait, you're stating it as a fact...were is the proof for that fact.

Yes, but you failed to understand what is and what is not evidence even before that. I have made this offer to you in the past and I am making it again.

And on top of your short comings there, the "you don't understand" defense, as I've said many times before, is getting old, just another means of stalling. Plus it has one more important attribute. It's like the "science proves nothing" claim. ..you buy that and scientists now have to prove nothing. You make the "you don't understand claim" and anything you say is right, your opposition just doesn't understand it. And folks, those are just a couple of the many tricks used to create their evolution delusion.

Sorry, just a little too convenient, not to mention, they are so yesterday, come up with some new ones....puleeeze.

Now now, no false claims. That is technically flaming. I am not stalling. I am waiting for you. If you want evidence you must first learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Christodoulos]

You are making the error of assuming that your god exists. One cannot "deny" that which does not exist or has not shown itself. Your version of God fails in at least one of those.

And an answer of "I don't know" is never an excuse to invoke a god. The fact that someone does not know something mean that a god has to be involved.

You don't seem to understand that when it comes to belief the null hypothesis condition would be that of atheism. That means the burden of proof is upon you to prove that a god exists, not the other way aroudn.

You are quite wrong to assume that the burden of proof rests on us Christians who believe in the Teachings of the Holy Bible, what it says on God, Creation, Salvation, Eternal life or death, etc, etc. The Holy Bible IS the Standard on which our faith is firmly based. It contains information on the existence of God and the Creation of the world by this God, out of nothing. These, and many more Facts are taught in its pages, and it remains up to those who deny these Facts, to disprove them. In other words, it is placed upon people like yourself, who deny the God of the Bible, to "prove" that He does not exist. To do so, you will have to give a reasonable account of how the universe began, and where you came from. You will also need to prove beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ, did not exist, and that any of His teachings, which included Creation, and the existence of God, are wrong. You will also need to prove that Jesus Christ did not Rise from the dead. You will also need to show the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who was a Jew, dedicated to the destruction of the "Way" of the Lord Jesus Christ; and of his conversion, and ministry proclaiming the very thing that he once sought to destroy. These are FACTS that you must disprove, before you can even begin to claim that there is no God.

 

[dmmesdale]

That is not "Google's definition". That is a definition and not a scientific one.

They are taught in the same bio textbooks. Contains chapters on origin of life and hypos of how life may have self assembled. So while one is considered chemistry and the other biology, they are obviously connected. There are no classification disputes in nature. These are human made thought stoppers and excuse making. Nobody on your side is arguing for taking origin of life from biology textbooks because it is chemistry.

Yes, an abiogenesis event is necessary for evolution to take place for evolution. So what? I thought that the topic was evolution.

It is the elephant in your room. There are no known ancestors to bacteria and any proposed are imagined or theorized, not actual. Big difference. Also pre biotic soup is all imagined. None of it has any actual science basis or basis in reality.

If you want to discuss abiogenesis that is a different topic.

Same topic, different man made categories. Now classifications take precedent over truth seeking or even thinking. Its not in that classification therefore i don't have to think about it.

Where we come from tells us who we are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are quite wrong to assume that the burden of proof rests on us Christians who believe in the Teachings of the Holy Bible, what it says on God, Creation, Salvation, Eternal life or death, etc, etc. The Holy Bible IS the Standard on which our faith is firmly based. It contains information on the existence of God and the Creation of the world by this God, out of nothing. These, and many more Facts are taught in its pages, and it remains up to those who deny these Facts, to disprove them. In other words, it is placed upon people like yourself, who deny the God of the Bible, to "prove" that He does not exist. To do so, you will have to give a reasonable account of how the universe began, and where you came from. You will also need to prove beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ, did not exist, and that any of His teachings, which included Creation, and the existence of God, are wrong. You will also need to prove that Jesus Christ did not Rise from the dead. You will also need to show the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who was a Jew, dedicated to the destruction of the "Way" of the Lord Jesus Christ; and of his conversion, and ministry proclaiming the very thing that he once sought to destroy. These are FACTS that you must disprove, before you can even begin to claim that there is no God.

Wrong, in the same way that the burden of proof would be upon a Muslim if he made a claim to you or to me about his faith have the same burden of proof.

So once again you are making the error of assuming that your god exists. Without valid evidence why believe?

 

[Christodoulos]

My personal philosophy is that my opinion on the existence of a supernatural creator being doesn't change what is. If a creator exists then they exist. If they don't exist, then they don't.

My personal belief doesn't change that.

That said, I personally don't believe in a divine creator and certainly not one that has a vested interest in humanity. At best I could see adopting a deist position.

That is why it's really a stretch to me to argue ID in favor of a specific Western religious belief in exclusion of all others.

your arguments are are therefore moot, as your own words testify that you really don't know what you believe, or don't believe, and yet you deny the God of the Bible!

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are taught in the same bio textbooks. Contains chapters on origin of life and hypos of how life may have self assembled. So while one is considered chemistry and the other biology, they are obviously connected. There are no classification disputes in nature. These are human made thought stoppers and excuse making. Nobody on your side is arguing for taking origin of life from biology textbooks because it is chemistry.

Abiogenesis is not "taught" in bio textbooks. It is merely mentioned there is a huge difference.

But yes, they are connected.

It is the elephant in your room. There are no known ancestors to bacteria and any proposed are imagined or theorized, not actual. Big difference. Also pre biotic soup is all imagined. None of it has any actual science basis or basis in reality.

Actually you are wrong. They are hypothesized. If they were "theorized" that would mean that the problem of abiogenesis was effectively answered. And no, the Miller Urey experiment first tested the concept of "prebiotic soup" and it has been tested again and again and confirmed again and again.

Same topic, different man made categories. Now classifications take precedent over truth seeking or even thinking. Its not in that classification therefore i don't have to think about it.

Where we come from tells us who we are.

Wrong. I am all for the truth. I am for seeking the answers. We have quite a few of them. You don't seem to like them.

And yes, the fact that we are descended from other apes does tell us quite a bit about ourselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

your arguments are are therefore moot, as your own words testify that you really don't know what you believe, or don't believe, and yet you deny the God of the Bible!

No, the "God of the Bible" need not be part of this conversation at all. But if you want to bring a god into the discussion that burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Christodoulos]

Wrong, in the same way that the burden of proof would be upon a Muslim if he made a claim to you or to me about his faith have the same burden of proof.

So once again you are making the error of assuming that your god exists. Without valid evidence why believe?

St Paul's Letter to the Church of Rome, best answers what you say:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.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 people 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 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." (Chapter 1, verses 18-23)

 

[Subduction Zone]

St Paul's Letter to the Church of Rome, best answers what you say:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.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 people 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 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles." (Chapter 1, verses 18-23)

Think to yourself:

How would you react if a Hindu quoted the Vedas to you?

The burden of proof is still upon you.

 

[Christodoulos]

Think to yourself:

How would you react if a Hindu quoted the Vedas to you?

The burden of proof is still upon you.

the Holy Bible ONLY is the Word of Almighty God, therefore ALL other "books" are demonic and LIES

 

[Subduction Zone]

the Holy Bible ONLY is the Word of Almighty God, therefore ALL other "books" are demonic and LIES

If you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you.

 

[Christodoulos]

If you want to claim that the burden of proof is upon you.

Can ANYONE who denies the Bible account of Creation, tell us how our world began?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can ANYONE who denies the Bible account of Creation, tell us how our world began?

Why not?

We understand how the Earth was formed rather well.

ETA: Not believing the Bible is not "denying". You should not use such loaded language.

 

[Christodoulos]

Why not?

We understand how the Earth was formed rather well.

ETA: Not believing the Bible is not "denying". You should not use such loaded language.

who "formed" it and with what? Where did that very first particle come from?

 

[46AND2]

You are quite wrong to assume that the burden of proof rests on us Christians who believe in the Teachings of the Holy Bible, what it says on God, Creation, Salvation, Eternal life or death, etc, etc. The Holy Bible IS the Standard on which our faith is firmly based. It contains information on the existence of God and the Creation of the world by this God, out of nothing. These, and many more Facts are taught in its pages, and it remains up to those who deny these Facts, to disprove them. In other words, it is placed upon people like yourself, who deny the God of the Bible, to "prove" that He does not exist. To do so, you will have to give a reasonable account of how the universe began, and where you came from. You will also need to prove beyond any doubt that Jesus Christ, did not exist, and that any of His teachings, which included Creation, and the existence of God, are wrong. You will also need to prove that Jesus Christ did not Rise from the dead. You will also need to show the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, who was a Jew, dedicated to the destruction of the "Way" of the Lord Jesus Christ; and of his conversion, and ministry proclaiming the very thing that he once sought to destroy. These are FACTS that you must disprove, before you can even begin to claim that there is no God.

Wrong. I don't claim that there is no god. It's just that I'm not convinced by any argument, so far, that there is one. You said:

"It contains information on the existence of God and the Creation of the world by this God, out of nothing. These, and many more Facts are taught in its pages, and it remains up to those who deny these Facts, to disprove them."

You are the one who is claiming they are facts. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate it is so. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I also do not claim that Jesus never existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

who "formed" it and with what? Where did that very first particle come from?

This is a poorly asked question. You assume that there was a "who" involved.

Now are you talking about the formation of the Earth or the start of the universe as we know it? Clearly asked questions are a must if you want clear answers.