inconsistent Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

This is an interesting article too.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... cleotides/

There is nothing magical about cell membranes either. At the simplest level they are simply a lipid layer. A molecule thin layer of fat molecules. (bilipid as I remember - two layers) It isn't hard to see how during the early evolution of these self replicating molecules of primitive RNA that those that propagated better (and were "eaten" less by other self replicating molecules) came out ahead of the race. Each little chemical attribute that gave a positive advantage to the process won through - the principles of feedback and catalysis at a molecular level. While there is still much to be discovered in this area it seems to largely be a case of doing the research uncovering the biochemical mechanisms and connecting the dots. Sooner or later it will be inevitable that science will provide a detailed map of how life originated from the simple organic compounds that were present on the early Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer



This is why nobody takes creationists seriously. They don't even know what they're talking about.

You are making a claim that has to be backed up by evidence. Can science disprove God?

Then there you go! Whether it is plausible or not is going to depend on what you actually believe and what biases or prejudices you impose on it. After reading the Bible, I don't find it problematic. Some do, of course, but I find that many who find the Bible problematic are especially inclined to do so. They aren't really being very objective.

So? You look at the specific claims that are being made and find the most reasonable one.

Take the Hellenistic pantheon, for instance. You have a bunch of gods that all disagree on everything, with human beings at the lowest levels of creation. The sole purpose of human existence is to live at the mercy of the gods, always appeasing one god just to get screwed by another.

Now, this might actually make sense if you're a hardline determinist with no sense of control over your own life. You work hard, be nice to people, get a staph infection and die anyway. The problem is that this view is in opposition to the human sense of justice.

On the other hand, a monotheistic religion is closer to being internally consistent. One God, one law, one standard. So if you can narrow religion down to at least monotheism, you're well on your way.

Depends on what you think is fanciful. I mean, that's a matter of subjective opinion. Your description God's actions don't reflect a very deep understanding of the text or its theology.

Not really. We're talking about the difference between someone who was known to have died versus Jesus who had risen from the dead and showed Himself to His disciples.

But that doesn't prove that they were wrong, either. That's like saying "Abe Lincoln's biographer knew the most about Abe Lincoln; therefore, the biographer is wrong."

A soap bubble does not a cell make. Without proteins,
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BW2vrPpmJOA[/youtube]

I suggest you click on the link before commenting on it:



Lipid bilayers aren't soap bubbles;

and



It is like the first sentence; and



So cell membranes can spontaneously form. Which contradicts the statement "no cell membrane has ever spontaneously formed" above. It is a shame I have to spell this out here to avoid having you find some loophole to continue your ignorance.

Last edited by iBlockhead on 06 Aug 2012, 8:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

You're gonna have to try again on that one, mate.

Lipid bilayers are the containers of cellular material in cells. Every single container inside of a cell, be it the cell membrane, mitochondria, the nuclear envelope, the endoplasmic reticulum, vacuoles, lysosomes....they're all made out of lipid bilayers. And, they spontaneously form.

So, in other words, you're flat out wrong.



Are you implying that proteins contain cellular structures? I mean, perhaps there's the odd case or two I don't know about yet, but the vast majority of cell structure containers are lipid bilayers, NOT proteins, although they generally have proteins IN them in the case of living cells. And, they've also spontaneously formed lipid bilayers that had proteins in them as well. I replicated the experiment in second year cell bio, even.

Which proves, what exactly? That soap bubbles form? It's not that simple. Cell membranes are made up of more protein than you're willing to admit. Proteins have to form from amino acids. What you have to show is that this can not only just spontaneously happen but that it can also happen within a short window of time on a hostile planet that just happens to be in a habitable zone. I'm not convinced that the timing of the earliest appearance of life on earth coincides with the probability of it doing so if it's just a random event. Either it's NOT a random event, or proteins spontaneously formed off-world where they'd have plenty of time to do so.

Last edited by AngelRho on 06 Aug 2012, 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_membrane



So, in other words, it's a soap bubble with proteins stuck into it.

You. Do. Not. Understand. Biology.

Important question, Rho: why is it that you feel that man's interpretation of Scripture is more reliable than the evidence gathered by observing God's Own Creation? Is it not possible that the authors of aforementioned book, incapable of truly understanding the transcendent message blasted through their feeble mortal minds, got some s**t wrong?

You don't read your own sources. Cell membranes are half protein by volume.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. I'll rely on physical evidence for my physical needs. I'll rely on scriptural evidence for my spiritual needs. I don't consider the Bible a reliable science textbook. I find it a reliable textbook on faith. What ultimately happens to the soul after leaving the temporal world is much more important than all it accomplishes while still in it. Science tells me what happens to my body when it dies. Faith tells me there are more important things to worry about.

...





Are you for real? Please tell me you're a troll. I'll feel like an idiot, but I'll at least keep my faith in humanity.

I mean, I just don't get it. Not once, not anywhere, did I imply that cell membranes didn't have proteins in them. I even stated they've figured out ways to get lipid bilayers to form with amphipathic proteins thrown into the mix.

Where the hell is this even coming from? How, in that incomprehensible mind of yours, does that statement actually even form any kind of sensible argument?

"Well you said that cell membranes have proteins in them! BUuuuuuuuutt........guess what? CELL MEMBRANES ARE 50% PROTEIN BY VOLUME!"

Like, seriously? What are you even refuting? You cannot be this dumb. Not only are you not right, you're not even wrong. This is just nonsense.

[edit] I just wanted to note, people, that these are the kind of people that would still probably not believe us if we managed to replicate the abiotic genesis of a proto-cell. There is never going to be enough evidence for these people. Now, and forever, "God did it, cause you can't prove God doesn't exist". That's just how it is, folks. I hope this has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Last edited by Shau on 06 Aug 2012, 9:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

I've given up trying to explain this to AngelRho. He lacks basic scientific knowledge and I'm not prepared to give him biology 101 lessons. It seems clear from his posts that even if one day scientists presented him with a detailed map of how life formed from simple organic compounds right up to the evolution of higher animals including man that he would still cling on to his creationist belief system. My guess is that creationism is such a fundamental part of his belief system that to lose it would irreconcilably break his faith; so he just stonewalls and tries (badly) to pick apart aspects of biochemistry he is clearly clueless about.

I'm done here.

Then by all means enlighten me. Throw all the basic components for lipid and amino acids together, shake it up real good or whatever you do with it, and show me that a cell can spontaneously form within a short period of time.

We got amino acids. We even got self-replicating RNA. So where are the proteins? How long would it take without any human intervention?

I mean, come on, I'm being accused of not knowing science, but nobody here even makes an attempt at showing me the evidence that spontaneous abiogenesis really does just happen. If I'm really that wrong, or "not even wrong," then this shouldn't be too terribly difficult.

But here's the truly remarkable thing: I'm being accused of being unreasonable to the point I wouldn't accept evidence even if it existed. Amazingly enough, the evidence for what I believe on spiritual matters are being held to such an impossible, unreasonable standard that when I do source the Bible as documentation for the events that shaped the teachings I follow that it's casually dismissed without so much as a thought. Looks to me like what we have here is a double-standard.

Not only that, but I am also wonder-struck at just how emotional the responses can be just because I raise a doubt about something. That does not bode well for objectivity, and an emotional attachment to something isn't very conducive to honest investigation.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

The thing is, though, I'm not strictly speaking a creationist, nor am I an evolution-denier. And by creationist, I'm referring to someone with an inflexible reading of Genesis and likely a YC worldview. I do think some creationists raise some important points that should be explored, though, and I have some doubts of my own. Science encourages questioning, right? Or am I just supposed to blindly accept what some scientists say?

What you are witnessing from other members isn't emotional attachment, it is frustration at your bull-headed ignorance.