Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2015, 09:56 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 07:35 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  You know what I don't get about YECs and other creationists? Saying that God designed and created this amazing biology is actually less impressive than saying that God created an autonomous process which creates and adapts amazing biology.

EC/TE's version of God is far more impressive than a YEC/OEC/PC/ID's version.

Atheist version of God is even better Thumbsup

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
17-07-2015, 11:23 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 04:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 08:38 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Really? Life couldn't have begun with simpler DNA/RNA that didn't compact up like this and didn't need to be unpacked? You cited eukaryote processes specifically. Eukaryota are very advanced single-cell organisms, and you have said nothing about the far-more basic bacteria.

The is no way of which prokaryotes could have evolved into eukaryotes, in the same manner as there is no way a beetle could be transformed into a Rolls Royce. So let me get that more specific for you : These nano motors are life essential for eukaryotic cells.

Quote:And now I'm leaning towards "crap he doesn't understand", on the grounds of "he thinks organisms actually choose or want to evolve". Dude, TRUST me. You'll embarrass yourself far less if you actually learn what evolution is, rather than what its detractors and the ID spin doctors maliciously misrepresent it as being.

I know what evolution is, and you have still not provided a explanation why evolution should be the best explanation for emerge of the nano motors in question.

If that is the case, you are knowingly and maliciously misrepresenting it. You're not actually attacking evolution, you're attacking a straw-man parody of it and hoping that will win points.

... or maybe you think you know what you're talking about and that ironic self-confidence is just another element of your cluelessness.

Either way, I'm not taking you at your word.

(17-07-2015 04:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:But we know of no intelligent minds capable of existing PRIOR TO THE ADVENT OF CELL DIVISION.

Knowing in the absolute sense of the term we do not. But a eternal, powerful creator of the univese and life is well conceivable, and makes a lot of sense. Everything coming from nothing, makes no sense to me. And we knot the universe is not eternal.

So, "conceivable and makes a lot of sense but can't be shown or demonstrated or identified" is valid when it comes to an intelligent designer, but not when it comes to abiogenesis? Especially when the basic principles of abiogenesis CAN be demonstrated, but the underlying principles of the designer cannot?

Yeah, the part of what I said that you cut out was whether you could maintain the same consistent level of skepticism towards your own pet theory that you do towards evolution. And the answer, here, is that you can't.

(17-07-2015 04:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote: They're all dependent upon the exact same processes you dismiss evolution as not being able to produce, or they are inventions of minds that are dependent on those. How does this get us out of your supposed chicken and the egg problem? Can you propose how a mind can exist prior to these supposed problems in biochemistry being addressed...

Why should that be non-logical, or non conceavible ?

Quote:How is this any LESS of a stretch than positing abiogenesis through natural processes?

because abiogenesis is literally IMPOSSIBLE.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

Skimmed it. Deceptive title aside, the argument isn't that it's impossible, the argument is that it's improbable. Already I see two or three options that it's ignoring, and I'm nowhere near a savvy expert. But even barring that, it's still clearing a conceptual hurdle that your designer-guess isn't.

(17-07-2015 04:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  
Quote:refusal to provide any testable hypothesis or mechanism for falsification

Have you asked ?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1659-do...redictions

Quote:, and generally carrying on like they deserve credit, attention, and respect when they can't even present their ideas as science.

the premise is based on scientific discoveries and facts. The abductional reasoning is essentially philosophical.

Quote:EDIT: In follow-up posts you brought up irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. Irreducible complexity is an example of the neutered models of evolution

No. Its a falsification of Darwins claims.

Quote: I mentioned before. Sometimes evolution cuts out a part rather than grows it, akin to building a stone arch over a pile of sand and then removing the sand.

"Complexity by Subtraction": In Evolutionary Biology, a Devilishly Subversive Suggestion

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/com...71281.html

This is all very revealing. In the geological context, we know very well how, as a starting point, "cliffs or piles of stone" form. It's readily comprehensible how, worn by water or weather, an arch may appear. In the biological context, we do not know how the starting point -- functioning "genes, cells, tissues or organs" -- got there.


...a: parts that have beneficial functions that are not the final function of the item in question,

what beneficial function would have a half eye ? a half arm ? a half leg ? a half circulatory system ? a incomplete photosynthesis apparatus, without the oxygen evolving complex, for example ? or without a proton gradient ? there are many parts and enzymes, which are function specific, and not used in various biological systems, but only in specific ones, as for example the last 7 enzymes in the chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway are unique.....

The half-an-eye argument? Darwin proposed a plausible (and fairly correct) means of an eye evolving in Origins, his original publication on the subject, before any criticism of evolution could even begin! And it doesn't include "half an eye". Again, this is a neutered model of evolution, a straw man that you attack because you're too cowardly to face the real thing. That people like you persist in this argument is the strongest evidence that you don't understand evolution... no matter how you might claim that you do. It's a bit like watching a five-year-old with a lighter claim he understands fire safety moments before he sets the carpet on fire.

... yeah, I'm done with you. Too ignorant to know anything of value. Too self righteous to learn. I've waded through this recycled garbage too many times already to be bothered doing it yet again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
17-07-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Kingschosen - I wholeheartedly agree with you about that, and have brought it up in most of my real-life discussions with YECs. A creator who must "stick his fingers in the mud" to make the magic happen is far less impressive than one who sets up the physics/chemistry parameters for the entire universe prior to the Singularity, then says "Go!", and watches it all unfold by natural law.

I use this metaphor: "Which is more impressive, a clockmaker who sits in his workshop all day, making billions of individual clocks that operate for a few thousand years... or one who designs a factory that emerges from a grain of sand, then self-assembles, randomly builds ever-improving and endless-variety designs for billions of years, and then self-disassembles at the end?"

That said, I'm an evolutionary biologist... I think the universe does it on its own without the need for outside help... and I think that's the most awesome of all.

Have you read The Language of God by Dr. Francis S. Collins? One of the top geneticists in the world is an evangelical Christian, and says the proof of evolution by natural causes verifies and enhances his faith, no conflict. Highly recommended.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
I think I have some chromosome condensation on my windshied.
Did Jebus put it there ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 07:40 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 05:46 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Since when can something arise from absolutely nothing ?? Laugh out load


If something cannot be made from nothing, what did god use to make the universe?

i did not say that. I said, from absolutely nothing, nothing comes. thats different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
"Is intelligent design generally, and irreducible complexity particularly, a mere argument of ignorance ? "

Yep, pretty much. Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
17-07-2015, 12:27 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 12:31 PM by pablo.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 12:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I think I have some chromosome condensation on my windshied.
Did Jebus put it there ?

[Image: 5244ee0b1605fb3cbb000003_zpsfucql8dl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes pablo's post
17-07-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Collins is one of my theological heroes.

I frequently tout him and BioLogos here on TTA.

Bakker as well.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 07:40 AM)Thinkerbelle Wrote:  If something cannot be made from nothing, what did god use to make the universe?

The question is irrelevant. "Arising" "making" and "creating" are *action* verbs. To have an action, one must already have (space)-time. Time as a dimension did not exist (as far as we now know) until this universe existed. Until we do know something about what may or may not be external to this universe, (or whether that notion even makes any sense at all), one cannot use action verbs in that context. The very notion of a god "creating" somthing refutes it's "eternal" character, as it places a timestamp in an eternal past and an eternal future. The notion of "creation" is incompatible with eternity.

So sad. Too bad. Time for Plan B.

Facepalm

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...ation.html

the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally{1}) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation;
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  Here, let me help educate you.

LOL.... sure.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1303-ch...osymbiotic

Quote:It is very clear that you have a cartoonish understanding of the theory of evolution.

ah yah ? how so ?


Quote:The rest of your ignorant dreck is just as easily refuted.

yeah, sure. And your mind does reside where ? and your thoughts ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: