• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

JILLIONS of Creation proof!

peschitta_enthusiast

Regular Member
Aug 13, 2004
311
7
✟482.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
""However, having one bacteria come to live in another bacteria, or a cell coming to live in another cell, is not a stretch. Think of tuberculosis. The tuberculosis bacterium must live inside another cell. So it is not so far-fetched.
""

That is a differnt issue, that is symbiosis. We are talking about supposed little organisms actually giving up their life and collaborating to form one cell, one life-form. That is a very dishonest example, to say that symbiotic animals, such as bacteria in termites' guts are the same thing. Naughty, naughty!
 
Upvote 0

Nathan David

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2002
1,861
45
55
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟2,226.00
Faith
Atheist
That's what we call a bald-faced lie.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan David

Well-Known Member
Sep 5, 2002
1,861
45
55
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟2,226.00
Faith
Atheist
peschitta_enthusiast said:
The very idea that the first cell was produced by little organisms coming together and deciding to collaborate to form one life-form is preposterous. It is grossly unscientific, and is yet to have any eveidence for it
No one thinks that happened, that's why there's no evidence for it.
 
Upvote 0
I

Ishmael Borg

Guest
Can you explain to me how TB and human cells have a symbiotic relationship? And please quit your silly taunts. This is a discussion forum, not second grade recess.
 
Upvote 0

Aggie

Soldier of Knowledge
Jan 18, 2004
1,903
204
41
United States
Visit site
✟25,497.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Libertarian
Oh God, not this again.

This isn't a very nice thing to find here when I come back here after being gone for a week. It's like coming home from college for the weekend and finding out that while I was gone the dog threw up on my bed. Why must you spam the board with your Pratt list?

Pratts make baby Jesus cry.
 
Upvote 0

peschitta_enthusiast

Regular Member
Aug 13, 2004
311
7
✟482.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
"Can you explain to me how TB and human cells have a symbiotic relationship?"

Yes, symbiosis was the wrong word, it is more a parasitic relationship. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as with the symbiotic relation of termites and their gut bacteria, that these are all INDIVIDUAL animals. The guy above seems not to have studied BIOL101, where you are taught that organelles of a cell were originally individual animals. This "individual animals collaborating to form one life-form" is very different from close relationships like symbiosis, parasitism, commensalism etc. And there is no evidence for it.
 
Upvote 0

Dexx

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2004
430
15
58
✟23,138.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nathan David said:
That's what we call a bald-faced lie.
It seems to be a core Creationist argument. I'm very interested to know of examples of genetic mutations that gave the creature a clear benefit, that left them able to breed, and maybe even added complexity to their genome.
Does the "fruit fly eating meat" example result from a change in genetic code or from a simple adaption to environment?
 
Upvote 0

peschitta_enthusiast

Regular Member
Aug 13, 2004
311
7
✟482.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
"It seems to be a core Creationist argument. I'm very interested to know of examples of genetic mutations that gave the creature a clear benefit, that left them able to breed, and maybe even added complexity to their genome.
"

Very rarely does a mutation benefit. And it would take TRILLIONS of years to get so many beneficial mutations to make a new animal species, especially when considering you have to have male and female mutating at the same time. Now, Earth is not that old, whether you believe in 8000 years or a few billion. As I like to say, we are NOT dealing with infinite time
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
I think the Nylon bug would fit the bill,
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm



Pesc: If beneficial mutations are so rare, why do we have so many examples of them, just in Humans alone?
Maybe they aren't as rare as you think.


 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
I see that you have given your normal amount of data and evidence to back up your assertions.

I disagree. It would not take trillions of years to get so many beneficial mutations to make a new animal species. We have observed new species of animals come about. I would think that this would be evidence that shows that your point is incorrect and that you are simply make assertions you can not support. Carry on.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
You were presented with much evidence of it and you have done nothing to refute that evidence except your continued assertions that there is no evidence. Why don't you address the evidence that was presented to you?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
peschitta_enthusiast said:
And it would take TRILLIONS of years to get so many beneficial mutations to make a new animal species

Why? You do realize that if you have a population with a billion individual reproducers, you can get a billion mutations (at least) in one generation. What are the odds than NONE of them would be beneficial?
,



especially when considering you have to have male and female mutating at the same time.

Why? What prevents a male from passing his mutations on to his daughters or a female passing hers on to her sons?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
peschitta_enthusiast said:
Let them reproduce it then... It has not been proven that organelles were individual organisms.
What a silly standard of proof you have. You have just invalidated 80% of science. This isn't the way science works and much like a murder investigation there is no need to 'reproduce' the murder in order to find and supply evidence that it happened.

You asked for evidence and have been presented it. Instead of addressing the evidence, you make a silly statement about reproducing it.

We have a fairly good idea what the evidence is saying. Unless a more reasonable idea can be presented as to why we have that evidence, then science will continue to accept the mainstream view of this.

Can you present an alternate explanation that addresses the evidence presented?
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
peschitta_enthusiast said:
What evidence? Scholarly consensus? The very same which persuaded the world that the Sun revolved around the Earth?
No, this time it's secular scholarly consensus. The kind that had nothing to lose from believing that the Earth was NOT the center of all creation.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
peschitta_enthusiast said:
Very well, you are on the ball. The very same scholarly consensus that held that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?
I think it would be more accurate to conclude that science asserted that the atom was the smallest particle KNOWN at the time. Can you point us to a scientific assertion that it was absolutely the smallest?

Of course, Creationists (namely Chick) assert that it is Jesus that is holding each atom together because nothing else could (an assertion that has no basis in reality).
 
Upvote 0

the_gloaming

Active Member
Mar 21, 2004
188
7
41
Ingalund
✟22,844.00
Faith
Agnostic
Very well, you are on the ball. The very same scholarly consensus that held that the atom was the smallest particle of matter?

No, that would be physicists, not biologists. As soon as there was evidence that atoms were made up of smaller particles, science would have stopped asserting that the atom was the smallest particle. Bear in mind this occured during the 19th century, and I believe now that science is much less definite; I don't think you'd find too many physicists who would bet on what the smallest particle is, as there may be something smaller.

You are using an example in physics of something that people may have asserted incorrectly. Does this invalidate the whole of science, including biology ? Does it even invalidate the whole of physics, considering that atomic bombs and nuclear energy work and fit the theories ? How about the computer you are using ? You might be able to give a few example where science was incorrect for a short period of time, but science is self correcting.

Back to the point. Firstly, as this is irritating me, organelles includes many more things than just mitochondria and chloroplasts. So it is true when you say "It has not been proven that organelles were individual organisms", because most organelles never were. Only mitochondria and chloroplasts. How these 2 organelles became incorporated into eukaryotic cells is known as the endosymbiont theory.

Now, I provided a lot of facts from 2 websites which when considered as a whole, provide very very good evidence that the endosymbiont theory is correct as a whole. Now, the endosymbiont theory is either correct or it isn't. As you believe it isn't, please interpret the evidence provided and explain how it could occur without endosymbiosis.
 
Upvote 0