Journey Inside The Cell

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
FIRST there was only asexual reproduction -bacteria are an example of that, THEN sexual reproduction and asexual reproduction in the same life form evolved but BEFORE male and female distinction evolved -the single-celled ciliates are a classical example of this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciliate “Ciliates can undergo both asexual and sexual re ...[text shortened]... ment and THEN male/female distinction evolved along side the evolution of specialised sex cells.

I must add that the above sequence, only applies to certain lines. Asexual reproduction still occurs to this day. This includes many single celled organism, most plants are capable of it and for many it is the only method, and even some fish and some reptiles.
I believe snails reproduce sexually but do not have the male/female distinction.

Originally posted by Dasa
Agreed.......and to deny intelligent design is to deny the trillions of examples that are all around you every day.

Persons who deny intelligent design are criminals to mankind, and are part of the problem and not the solution.

I believe in a Creator, but to suggest that those that don't are criminals to mankind
is a bit much for me. Who do you think you are by the way, the judge of all?
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Why do these debates always end up with a pack of rabid materialists attacking an innocent servant of the most high God?

Come on, less of the sensationalist theatrics.

Firstly, i know you like your easy black and white world but in this instance you are wrong again. Suzianne is a Christian, and 'The Cat' is not an atheist, so your character tum ad ignorantiam[/i] - and that the answers has been there the whole time.[/quote][/b]

my dear sir, you obviously have severely underestimated the strength of my conviction, i really do think its a piece of nonsense.

Suzanne is not a Christian she is an apostate, for Christian teaching is quite clear on the matter, Christ advocated and taught that humans did not evolve but were created without precedent. What is it about that statement that you fail to grasp? A Christian is one who advocates and adheres to the the teaching of Christ. Where are the teachings of Christ found? Nowhere but the Bible, exclusively!

Secondly your point well illustrates RBHills initial post and i find it utterly contemptible that you are still trying to label those who oppose your point of view as ignorant. I have a copy of the origin of the species in my library, i have even read three quarters of it, i still find it laughable what you are willing to believe. Suzzane again tried the same, what were her words again, 'get an education'. How would you like if we really did starting to talk of, those dumbass materialists, they dont know what they are talking about, imbeciles dont know one end of a Holy book from the other, for that it was your post amounts to, you and everyone else who calls those who oppose their point of view ignorant.

I will say this for the last time, intelligent design and creationists have no problem with scientific data and its evaluation, its the very same data after all, all they are doing is proposing an alternative interpretation of that data, that is what you people cannot handle, for they are using not religion to substantiate their claims, but science. No Christian has anything to fear from the hypothesis itself, its the rabid and militant protagonists who wish to silence anyone who opposes their point of view who are to be treated as one would a rattle snake.

Originally posted by JS357
If by secularist you mean a commitment to exclude any of the varieties of supernaturalism from scientific theories on the emergence and diversification of life, I agree, science is secularist. If by materialist you mean those who believe physical matter is the only reality, then with respect I disagree that science and materialism amount to the same thing and ...[text shortened]... stem is theistic evolution or evolutionary creation which he prefers to term BioLogos.

An excellent post if ever i read one, my only grievance is in the distinction of what constitutes a Christian, for i hold that it is one who applies and advocates to others the teaching of Christ. Jesus teaching is quite clear on the matter, humans were created without precedent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
An excellent post if ever i read one, my only grievance is in the distinction of what constitutes a Christian, for i hold that it is one who applies and advocates to others the teaching of Christ. Jesus teaching is quite clear on the matter, humans were created without precedent.

Thank you. I mean no disrespect to anyone's distinction of what constitutes a Christian.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Secondly your point well illustrates RBHills initial post and i find it utterly contemptible that you are still trying to label those who oppose your point of view as ignorant.

You have already demonstrated that although you are ignorant (of much of the Theory of Evolution and many critical related scientific concepts), you cannot use it as an excuse for some of your false claims in this thread (as you have already been enlightened of your errors, but you repeat the lies anyway).
So how do we correctly describe your deliberate choice to disbelieve the evidence and even go further and lie about it? You have explained to us why you do it (it conflicts with your beliefs about Jesus), but how do we describe you?
Stupid? No, I don't think so.
Insane? Thats closer, but has too many over tones of clinical insanity. Maybe 'deluded' would be better.
Wicked? Well that depends on the outcome of your actions and whether your realize that when you lie to save your faith you cause others harm in the process.

So what is a better description that Richard Dawkins could have added to his list?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Firstly there is a basis for accepting that the Bible is inspired. This includes such things as, its internal harmony, fulfilled prophecy, the practicality of the application of its principles. Its not a mere acceptance without recourse to any kind of study.

Secondly whether something is peer reviewed has no literal weight, its the guinea stamp ...[text shortened]...
Yes it makes me happy, did not Jesus say, 'happy are those conscious of their spirituality'?

Firstly there is a basis for accepting that the Bible is inspired. This includes such things as, its internal harmony, fulfilled prophecy, the practicality of the application of its principles. Its not a mere acceptance without recourse to any kind of study.

Internal harmony? I'm sure you're aware of the massive number of straight literal contradictions within the bible, not to mention the huge variance in the nature of the OT and NT idea of god. Darwin's book, alternatively, is entirely harmonious with itself and the natural world.

Fulfilled prophecy? We had this chat before. The only evidence for fulfilled prophecy comes from the book itself. That's just not sound reasoning. Darwin's work predicted the existence of DNA - this is an inarguable fulfilled prophecy.

Practicality of application of principles? You're clutching at straws here. The vast majority of christians don't adhere to all of the principles laid down in the bible as many of them are simply impractical.

The only basis for accepting the bible as inspired is because the bible says it is and because lots of people who believe in this have agreed that it is over the years.

Secondly whether something is peer reviewed has no literal weight, its the guinea stamp for all that, why, simply because the basis for acceptance assumes certain premises, that being a purely material view of the emergence and diversification of life, and as we know from platonic philosophy, any argument which rests upon an assumption as its criteria of proof, is walking on thin ice. What is more, what is accepted in scientific circles today, may be overturned tomorrow, after someone re-evaluates the very same data or as more data comes to light.

Yes, the theory of evolution has been open to attack since it was first published. It remains today almost universally accepted by all reputable scientists. The bible, on the other hand... I can't even begin to count how many different interpretations are made of this scripture by the myriad groups of self-professed faithful christians around the world.

I find it utterly astonishing that persons are willing to give credence to life having originated from non living matter and yet deny the resurrection simply because the former comes with glossy plastic scientific packaging. But who ever denied that advertising doesn't work!

Really? You find the possibility of abiogenesis to be less likely than the biblical story of the resurrection? Despite the fact that the former doesn't require anything miraculous? Personally I find both seem unlikely, but with only sparse, ancient and clearly biased non-contemporary accounts to detail the latter, Occam surely demands it's rejection.

Try to remain focused. It's the origin of species we're considering here, not the origin of life.

Yes it makes me happy, did not Jesus say, 'happy are those conscious of their spirituality'?

Jesus may or may not have said it, neither you nor I will ever know.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]Firstly there is a basis for accepting that the Bible is inspired. This includes such things as, its internal harmony, fulfilled prophecy, the practicality of the application of its principles. Its not a mere acceptance without recourse to any kind of study.

Internal harmony? I'm sure you're aware of the massive number of straight literal ity'?[/b]

Jesus may or may not have said it, neither you nor I will ever know.[/b]

oh dear, let me ask you cat, how many times have you actually read the book in the past year? month? week? lets test you out, shall we?

What is the theme that runs from the beginning to the end of the compilation, spanning a period of more than 1,500 years, being written upon and attested to by more than forty different authors from entirely different back grounds and epochs of history. Please explain, seeing that you are now an expert.

Darwins book is nothing short of ludicrous, one only needs to look at the scientific evidence from the fossil record and the entire theory falls to pieces.

The only evidence comes from the book itself? no its not, archaeology and history may be also used as corroborative evidence, as well as a study of customs and practices.

Whether they adhere to it or not is neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is, apply the principles and you will lead a more purposeful, happy and fulfilled life. Not only that, it will make you more loving, tolerant and reasonable. Materialism offers nothing, its empty and deviod of substance. It can neither comfort you nor make you happy, nor enlighten you. In fact i challenge you to state why adopting a materialistic outlook is of any benefit to the adherent, whatsoever. what are these impractical principles that you speak of, please name them and I can certainly demonstrate they are nothing of the sort.

Whether something is accepted by others is hardly a credential for our accepting it, after all, we have our own minds and like to make our own evaluations, do we not? weak and beggarly argument that you propose on the basis of its acceptance by others.

Not only do i find it astonishing its entirely mathematically improbable so as to resemble finding a functioning jumbo jet self assembled in the middle of a junkyard. How anyone can believe it really is beyond me, especially when one considers the complexities of the cell and its functions as described in RBHill initial video clip.

It amounts to the same thing, pure unadulterated double concentrated, hyper intensive materialism. Simply looking at them from a position of the origin of a certain species or the origin of life itself is triple moot to boot, for the questions have a bearing, one on the other, despite your insistence on 'remaining focused'.

Whether he said it or not, the teaching remains, recorded in scripture, 'happy are those conscious of their spiritual need'. Please explain the significance of this rather profound statement, if you please.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have already demonstrated that although you are ignorant (of much of the Theory of Evolution and many critical related scientific concepts), you cannot use it as an excuse for some of your false claims in this thread (as you have already been enlightened of your errors, but you repeat the lies anyway).
So how do we correctly describe your deliberate ...[text shortened]... rocess.

So what is a better description that Richard Dawkins could have added to his list?

more mere opinion masquerading as some type of truth, you know i very rarely give credence to your posts, all they are is mere opinion, never substantiated. I dont think that in my time at RHP i have learned anything from your posts. I know not what you do, but if you are a teacher, please think of retraining for a different career.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear, let me ask you cat, how many times have you actually read the book in the past year? month? week? lets test you out, shall we?

what is the theme that runs from the beginning to the end of the compilation, spanning a period of more than 1,500 years, being written upon and attested to by more than forty different authors from entirely dif ...[text shortened]... al need'. Please explain the significance of this rather profound statement, if you please.

what is the theme that runs from the beginning to the end of the compilation, spanning a period of more than 1,500 years, being written upon and attested to by more than forty different authors from entirely different back grounds and epochs oh history. Please explain, seeing that you are now an expert.

That the Jews are the chosen people? That god is sometimes benevolent, sometimes capricious, sometimes cruel? That despite omnipotence and omniscience, god's creation doesn't go to plan?

In fact, I have never claimed to be an expert on the bible or christianity, but I forgive you for your sarcastic challenge.

Darwins book is nothing short of ludicrous, one only needs to look at the scientific evidence from the fossil record and the entire theory falls to pieces.

Now here I am quite well-read, and I've never encountered or read of a single palaeontologist who would have the temerity to call Darwin's book 'ludicrous'. I guess you're smarter than all of them, eh?

the only evidence comes from the book itself? no its not, archaeology and history may be also used as corroborative evidence, as well as a study of customs and practices.

Again, this was addressed in previous discussions. Archaeology and history only confirm that these fairy tales were sometimes set in the real world and sometimes involved real people. Nothing more.

whether they adhere to it or not is neither here nor there, the fact of the matter is, apply the principles and you will lead a more purposeful, happy and fulfilled life. Not only that, it will make you more loving, tolerant and reasonable. Materialism offers nothing, its empty and deviod of substance. It can neither comfort you nor make you happy, nor enlighten you. In fact i challenge you to state why adopting a materialistic outlook is of any benefit to the adherent, whatsoever. what are these impractical principles that you speak of, please name them and I can certainly demonstrate they are nothing of the sort.

In fact, study after study shows that adherents to the principles of buddhism consistently outscore those of any other faith or persuasion where happiness and satisfaction with life is concerned. Personally I would not advocate a purely materialist view of life, but I don't see that it is necessarily 'empty and devoid of substance'. I prefer to keep an open mind, to avoid 'belief' in any unprovable dogma including hard materialism. I nevertheless suspect that it is perfectly capable of bringing comfort, happiness and even enlightenment, it certainly seems to be doing a fine job to a decent proportion of the world's population. It can also be argued perfectly cogently that the benefits you assign to your faith are in no way particular to your faith.

whether something is accepted by others is hardly a credential for our accepting it, after all, we have our own minds and like to make our own evaluations, do we not? weak and beggarly argument that you propose on the basis of its acceptance by others.

This point of yours seem more critical of scripture than of Darwin. Should the bible and "...Origin of Species" be considered in isolation by one rational man, would you really argue that the bible is the more credible?

Not only do i find it astonishing its entirely mathematically improbable so as to resemble finding a functioning jumbo jet self assembled in the middle of a junkyard. How anyone can believe it really is beyond me, especially when one considers the complexities of the cell and its functions as described in RBHill initial video clip.

Well, if you consider it thus, it must be an act of god (my turn for sarcasm!). As mathematically improbable as you find it, it is still more likely than an infinite god.

it amounts to the same thing, pure unadulterated double concentrated, hyper intensive materialism. Simply looking at them from a position of the origin of a certain species or the origin of life itself is triple moot to boot, for the questions have a bearing, one on the other, despite your insistence on 'remaining focused'.

It most certainly does not. Evolution can be shown to be taking place. As yet, abiogenesis is no more than a theory.

Whether he said it or not, the teaching remains, recorded in scripture, 'happy are those conscious of their spiritual need'. Please explain the significance of this rather profound statement, if you please.

I don't see any profundity in this statement. It's just another bit of faith propaganda, attempting to convince the audience that the only way to happiness is through religion.

Honestly, Robbie, I have studied your scripture alongside that of other religions, and I find nothing to recommend yours over, for example, Vishvahetu's. If the only way your god can get his message to his people is via the writings of people, whom he has determined should be endlessly duplicitous, unreliable and self-aggrandizing, then it seems hardly an omnipotent deity after all.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my dear sir, you obviously have severely underestimated the strength of my conviction, i really do think its a piece of nonsense.

Suzanne is not a Christian she is an apostate, for Christian teaching is quite clear on the matter, Christ advocated and taught that humans did not evolve but were created without precedent. What is it about that sta ...[text shortened]... ence anyone who opposes their point of view who are to be treated as one would a rattle snake.

I don't doubt your convcition Rob, but what you term conviction i term delusion and indoctrination.

i find it utterly contemptible that you are still trying to label those who oppose your point of view as ignorant.

No, i label those ignorant who have never read anything on the subject, and who repeat the same old creationist canards, and that includes you!! You've read three quarters of a book written 150+yrs ago. There is 150yrs of evidence that has now been gathered. We now understand about genes, DNA, chromosones and the workings of living creatures down to their intricate details, all of this was not known in Darwins day.

The first complete dinosaur wasn't found until 1840 something, i don't know how many extinct species had been catalogued when Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, but there are now over 250,000 distinct species catalogued from the fossil record and that is ever growing. The mountain of evidence for evolution since Darwin proposed his theory is huge and ever growing and until you actually read a modern book on evolution then i maintain your stance is nothing more than an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

You can find my view as contemptible as you like, but if you have a stance on something and have never read anything on that subject then your view is simply based on ignorance.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
[b]what is the theme that runs from the beginning to the end of the compilation, spanning a period of more than 1,500 years, being written upon and attested to by more than forty different authors from entirely different back grounds and epochs oh history. Please explain, seeing that you are now an expert.

That the Jews are the chosen people? ...[text shortened]... and self-aggrandizing, then it seems hardly an omnipotent deity after all.[/b]

point number one! fail! that is not the basic theme which runs from genesis through to revelation! Honestly Cat dude, these are the same type of comments that one is subject to from day to day by persons who have never read the books. Do i dare to call out, ignorant, insane, wicked, nope, for that would be to bring one down to the level of the seething Dawkins.

Whether i am smarter or not, is not the point, please try to remain objective. One must evaluate the evidence with ones own mind. Have you read Origin of the species? In my copy, chapter IX, On the imperfection of the fossil record (chapter heading), p.213,

'the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediary links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (you dont say!) the explanation lies, as i believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

So Darwin, rather than objectively facing the scientific facts, attacks the fossil record. Well ok, that was then, what about today, for there are more than one hundred million extant and catalogued fossils.

Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson described the situation this way, after 40 years of his own research: 'It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of palaeobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.'

We could of course talk of the sudden appearance of complex life forms, without precedent and cite many other noble and learned individuals. I dont think that Hindus truly are more happy and purposeful, after all, there are some that are quite militant and who loath Muslims etc etc. That is not the credentials of a person or group at peace with themselves.

If you have examined the scripture you shall be able to explain the portion, it was after merely one verse, one out of thousands, and look how your preconception (i was going to say prejudice, but felt it too harsh) would not allow you to do it and thus the verse remains a mystery. 'Its propaganda!, its propaganda!', its cries, I find that incredibly interesting, i really do.

I resent your term fairy tales! They are as much factual as life having emerged from non life or finding a fully functional jet in a junk yard. In fact did not French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrate that you cannot get life from a sterile environment. . . . just saying.

One final thing i will say, you may study all you like, however, its not in the cerebral assimilation of principles that one finds joy, but in the practical application of the principles. I have yet to find a materialist yet who could argue that self sacrificing love is not the greatest pinnacle of human ethics! as embodied by the Christ. Indeed, as Gandhi himself stated, it would solve all the worlds problems!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh dear, let me ask you cat, how many times have you actually read the book in the past year? month? week? lets test you out, shall we?

What is the theme that runs from the beginning to the end of the compilation, spanning a period of more than 1,500 years, being written upon and attested to by more than forty different authors from entirely dif ...[text shortened]... al need'. Please explain the significance of this rather profound statement, if you please.

Darwins book is nothing short of ludicrous, one only needs to look at the scientific evidence from the fossil record and the entire theory falls to pieces.

Really, how is that? Secondly, what if one looks at the genetic evidence, how does that fair in your view?

How anyone can believe it really is beyond me, especially when one considers the complexities of the cell and its functions as described in RBHill initial video clip.

You're wrongly assuming that the cells we see today appeared out of nowhere, if you'd actually read up on the subject you would know the the cells we see today are the result of evolution themselves. They evolved into the complexity we see today. This has been pointed out to you before, by Andrew Hamilton, why do you insist on this false representation?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I don't doubt your convcition Rob, but what you term conviction i term delusion and indoctrination.

[b]i find it utterly contemptible that you are still trying to label those who oppose your point of view as ignorant.

No, i label those ignorant who have never read anything on the subject, and who repeat the same old creationist canards, and tha ng and have never read anything on that subject then your view is simply based on ignorance.[/b]

yeah yeah, we know what you think dear Noobster, unsubstantiated opinion it is as well.

i am reading Darwins book at the moment, it is after all, the basis of the theory, or perhaps there was another? Have you read it? i bet you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be spouting half the stuff you do! Is a person not allowed to evaluate these things with his own mind? If not, why not? should we become like the materialist borgs, half organic and half machine, unable to think and function for ourselves? No, well then, lets not talk of indoctrination if we are not prepared to use our own minds. Until you read scripture by your own terms you are spiritually ignorant, and can have no recourse to call anyone's else's beliefs into question. Your other points regarding the fossil record have been addressed, AGAIN, for about the millionth time.

Why dont you tell the people out of those one hundred million fossils that are extant and catalogued, how many pertain the link between human and simian? shall I tell them? Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Darwins book is nothing short of ludicrous, one only needs to look at the scientific evidence from the fossil record and the entire theory falls to pieces.[/b]

Really, how is that? Secondly, what if one looks at the genetic evidence, how does that fair in your view?

How anyone can believe it really is beyond me, especially when one considers pointed out to you before, by Andrew Hamilton, why do you insist on this false representation?

What evidence that cells evolved from non living matter? what genetic evidence? do tell! i dont read Hamiltons posts, he has no interest in spirituality. If they have evolved synthetically, why are you unable to recreate said life today? please explain?