Signature in the cell

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Goodness!

Who knew that such a small video would create such a rant.

:freak: This is much better:

"Ben Stein: How did it [life] start?
Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone..."Expelled April 18 2008 source
 
Last edited:

Stuu

New member
:freak: This is much better:

"Ben Stein: How did it [life] start?
Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone..."Expelled April 18 2008 source
Are you claiming to know how RNA / DNA became the self-replicating molecule common to all life on the planet?

Stuart
 

DavisBJ

New member
I thought the video was well done, and though cell biology is not at all my field, I presume the details of the video were largely accurate. I was not surprised when, at the very end, the video gratuitously stamped “intelligent design” on it. Complicated – yes. Amazing – yes. Interesting – yes. Therefore had to be designed by an intelligent being – not at all.
 

Boomer

Diving deep
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You are just showing your ignorance of biology 'Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyers' is just the usual unsupported assertions in a most tedious fashion.
“Don't look now, but there's one too many in this room and I think it's you.” - Groucho Marx
It's the ooh this is too hard to understand therefore God! It's beyond pathetic and insults the intelligence of all who follow it.
“I have met a lot of hardboiled eggs in my time, but you're twenty minutes.” - Oscar Wilde
Don't make me give you a crash course in biology because I'm more than up for it. (even if it turns out to be a waste of time as you will believe 'godidit' anyway.) There is surely enough problems in physics to be getting on with before I take lectures from a ignoranous.
A .22 caliber post in a .357 Magnum world.
 

Boomer

Diving deep
Staff member
Administrator
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Where does it say RNA or DNA in Genesis 1 or Psalm 104?

Stuart

:doh: Oh snap! I didn't know that. Does Genesis mention microscopes too?

While the technical details were not known by the writers of Psalms, he did know that God was in the details.

Psalm 139:12-14


12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light
are both alike to You.

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully
and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And
that my soul knows very well.
 

Stuu

New member
:doh: Oh snap! I didn't know that. Does Genesis mention microscopes too?

While the technical details were not known by the writers of Psalms, he did know that God was in the details.

Psalm 139:12-14


12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
But the night shines as the day;
The darkness and the light
are both alike to You.

13 For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully
and wonderfully made;
Marvelous are Your works,
And
that my soul knows very well.
Thanks for your reply. Serpentdove made this claim:

God created RNA and DNA

...and then failed to substantiate it. The reference given referred to neither RNA nor DNA. Then you also failed to add anything, because Psalm 139 also appears to say nothing about nucleic acids.

So, if you aren't going to say anything about RNA or DNA either, why did you reply?

Stuart
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
It sounds all very nice until you then have, who designed the designer and who designed the designer designer, ad infinitum. All you have done is added another step to an already difficult conundrum. Best to just lose that step and concentrate on the original problem.
Except that no one designed the designer.
 

Lighthouse

Star-Spangled Kid
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Thanks for your reply. Serpentdove made this claim:

God created RNA and DNA

...and then failed to substantiate it. The reference given referred to neither RNA nor DNA. Then you also failed to add anything, because Psalm 139 also appears to say nothing about nucleic acids.

So, if you aren't going to say anything about RNA or DNA either, why did you reply?

Stuart
Idiot.
 

Stuu

New member
"The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers

See:

How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers
So when you say "God created RNA and DNA" you are not actually saying anything meaningful. You are not saying what chemistry was used or whether the sequence of bases was contained within a cell or anything like that. When you posted this:


"Ben Stein: How did it [life] start?
Richard Dawkins: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
Ben Stein: And what was that?
Richard Dawkins: It was the origin of the first self replicating molecule.
Ben Stein: Right, and how did that happen?
Richard Dawkins: I've told you, we don't know.
Ben Stein: So you have no idea how it started.
Richard Dawkins: No, no. Nor has anyone..."Expelled April 18 2008 source



...you had nothing more to say than Dawkins or Stein on the question How did life start? And in fact, Dawkins knows what kind of event "must have happened" while you don't seem to know even that.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
How to Know the Bible is the Word of God by Adrian Rogers

The Bible is not the book of the month-- it is the book of the ages.
Religious platitude.

Man only has three problems: sin, sorrow, and death.
Religious platitude.

This is the only book in the world that has the answer to these problems.
No True Scotsman fallacy.

There are those like the cults that distort [the bible].”
Hypocrisy.

There are others who dissect it, reading it like a math book rather than a love story.
A story of compulsory love inspired by fear.

Why believe the Bible? Because your salvation depends upon it.
Religious platitude.

Your growth depends upon the word of God. Your sanctification depends upon the world of God. Your assurance depends upon the word of God.
Three religious platitudes.

We can believe the word of God (1) because of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
Logical fallacy of composition.

Some say: "Of course the Bible is not scientifically accurate because it was was written thousands of years ago."
Logical fallacy of strawman argument.

Before you say that, make sure of two things--make certain that you know science and make certain that you know the word of God. The Bible does not always agree with science--and for that I am infinitely glad. If you've been to Paris, you may have visited the Louvre. There are 3 1/2 miles of books on science and almost every one of them is obsolete. Science is changing. What is scientific fact in one era is not in another era. In 1861 there was an anti-God French academy of science that gave 51 facts that prove the Bible wrong. Today, more than 100 years later, there is not a reputable scientist who believes one of those 51 facts. Aren't you glad the Bible did not agree with that science? Had the Bible agreed with that science the Bible would have been wrong. Give the scientists enough time, perhaps they'll catch up with the Bible.
See the logical fallacy of composition above: science is not wrong because it has rejected old ideas. The bible is not right because some wrong claims about it have been disproved.

The Bible teaches about science:

The earth suspended in space (Job 26:7). How did Job know that?
He got it wrong, didn’t he, because god corrects him later on:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

And he should have known this:
1 Samuel 2:8 The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them.
Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.




Earth is a sphere. Isa 40:22. How did Isaiah know that?
It says the earth is a circle. Where does “sphere” come from?

The stars are without number (human number, uncountable) [Jer 33:22].
It’s not true that the stars are without number. We don’t know that number, but if we are going to be literal about it, there is a number, and it is constantly changing.

How did they know? All scripture given by inspiration of God (2 Ti 3:16).
Religious platitude.

Now move into physiology and biology. Blood is in the life. We that that for granted. It was not until 1615 that William Harvey discovered that blood even circulates in the body--the incredible properties of human blood. In relatively recent times when men got sick they would attribute it to blood. The barber pole represented a bandage. They would bleed men in the hopes that they would get well. The father of our country George Washington got sick and they bled him three times. They bled him to death. Lev 17:14, blood--it is the life of all flesh, an incredible scientific statement.
It’s pretty obvious that if you don’t take out too much blood a person will survive, and if you take out too much the person will die. There is nothing in Leviticus that says blood circulates. This is not an “incredible statement” at all. There is nothing surprising about it.

In the Middle Ages there was a Bubonic Plague, called the Black Plague. 1 out of 4 died. They could not figure out what caused it. It was one of the greatest natural disasters in human history. The word of God was the solution. If a man had the plague quarantine him (Lev 13:46).
Leviticus recommends quarantine for leprosy, not for bubonic plague.

1840, in hospitals in Vienna 1 out of 5 mothers were dying of infection. They would go in for inspections and they were getting infected. Doctors did not wash their hands. Dr. Semmelweis said from now on, you will wash your hands before you examine. They would go from the morgue to make examinations. 1 out of 84 died. After this policy 11 out of 12 died. Then he said, you will wash between every examination. Doctors said, no we can't do that. Nu 19:14-19, when men die in a tent they shall be unclean 7 days (time for the bacteria to die) every open vessel is unclean, if you touch one slain, or a dead body or bone or one in the grave, they shall be unclean 7 days. They had no idea about a germ. God says don't contaminate. Edited sermon notes Adrienne Rogers: How to Know the Bible is the Word of God
But all it reports is ideas of uncleanliness and washing rituals that in some cases would have helped but in other cases would not have helped. There is no discrimination that makes this modern science, it is the results of observing correlations, in other words they were doing “ancient science” with nothing in the way of variable control.

I would be impressed if the bible said “Wash you hands before eating because disease can be caused by things too small for you to see”.

"The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." ~ Adrian Rogers
The earth did not exist before light. There never was a global flood. There never was a time of just two people.

Have you got a logically valid argument for your claim?

Stuart
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Its mind boggling that our bodies evolved into such a complex machine when surely there are easier, just as functional ways we could have evolved.

God could have stepped in and built a universe quite different by design. But He chose not to. Who are we to tell Him that evolution, messy as it is, was the wrong way to go? As the IDers say, a "space alien" could be the "designer." Only God can be the Creator.

Its even more mind boggling that it all happened by chance.

Darwin's great discovery was that it didn't happen by chance. He suggested that God created the first living things, after which they evolved into the present diversity of life. St. Augustine wrote something like that, too.

It has the virtue of being consistent with reality. Not a bad thing, that.
 
Top