The Miracles of Creationism

[EsgarBlackpoxs]

Caput Mortum

I love the fact that you only assume the view of western creationists.

Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.

But lucky for us, the origin of life is inconsequential to the validity of Evolution. Evolution only deals with how life changed/changes once it got here.

[Prince Velvetear]

VoijaRisa

Caput Mortum

The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex.

There's no such thing as "irreducible complexity" since the very definition as proposed by Behe is entirely contrived.

Well irreducible complexity was used to explain the evolution of structures, not life as a whole.

There is a huge difference between "no eye to eyes" compared to "no life to life". An eye without a lens still functions to see light, a flagella without all the proper protein can still function for another purpose, however a ribosome without RNA has no purpose. RNA without a ribosome also has no purpose.

[Zillion Seven]

synesthesia_death

Solar Phantom

synesthesia_death

Solar Phantom

Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.

No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...

Creation is from the old testament, with that being said if you believe in it the way the OP talks about it then you follow one of the religions that uses to old testament in their religion. So that means that is reasonable to say that the OP is including the Christian faith and would have to since like i said it came out of text that Christian faiths practice. I also said that most of us do not follow it word for word, but there are people who do. So "with that being said" you can assume that I am not generalizing either, but i am fully in the right to assume that he is including the "word for word" Christians out there.

Also Christian does not mean Catholic.

Not at all. The creationist belief entitles even tribes from various countries, 'tis many of the judeo-christian believers that have decided to carry the flag of representation for it as a scientific fact. So you are generalizing.

That made no sense. I am sorry because I usually don't say things like that. Read what i said and not what you think i said. I didn't put the word "assume" because it looked nice. I understand that many tribes and what-not came up with ways to explain their world. I also understand that the flood or water is seen in other creation stories. People have been always trying to explain their existence. That is why there are so many stories of how we were made. Since the context mentioned the flood and other things that hint to old testament believes, to me it seemed as if he is

Quote:

including the "word for word" Christians out there.

Quote:

including the "word for word"

Quote:

including the

Quote:

including

So tell me this is it? Was it wrong for me to think that he may be also referring to Christians who believe in creationism.

[Prince Velvetear]

Like a Dirigible

Caput Mortum

I love the fact that you only assume the view of western creationists.

Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.

Which is why there are theories as to where life came from.
One where RNA came first from random chemicals swirling in primordial ooze. (RNA World Hypothesis)
And one where Protein came first from the same place. (Iron-Sulfur World Theory)

As failed to mention, RNA can act as an enzyme and replicate on its own, which means that if RNA somehow formed without protein, then it doesn't actually need protein and can sustain independent life.

Ribozymes are very limited in there ability to catalyze reactions. Almost all known ribozymes are integrated with protein, the RNA simply acts and the activations site of the reaction. More over scientists have not been able to polymerize a RNA chain of more than 18 base pairs, without the aid of protein. It is very had to believe that all a cells life processes could be done by only RNA.

[synesthesia_death]

Solar Phantom

synesthesia_death

Solar Phantom

synesthesia_death

Solar Phantom

Also you so realize that most Christians do not take the bible word for word. There are some crazy bible thumpers out there that do think the flood and such are true, but remember most of us do not think that way. In fact most of us, due to modern say science and visible proof that evolution is real and is still and will continue taking place, believe that it is real. However we still think that something set the events in motion. In other words if the head of match was the universe, God was the one that struck it and started the flame.

No one here generalized(or should have) christians as creationists...
The OP merely disproves various points creationists should take into consideration...

Creation is from the old testament, with that being said if you believe in it the way the OP talks about it then you follow one of the religions that uses to old testament in their religion. So that means that is reasonable to say that the OP is including the Christian faith and would have to since like i said it came out of text that Christian faiths practice. I also said that most of us do not follow it word for word, but there are people who do. So "with that being said" you can assume that I am not generalizing either, but i am fully in the right to assume that he is including the "word for word" Christians out there.

Also Christian does not mean Catholic.

Not at all. The creationist belief entitles even tribes from various countries, 'tis many of the judeo-christian believers that have decided to carry the flag of representation for it as a scientific fact. So you are generalizing.

That made no sense. I am sorry because I usually don't say things like that. Read what i said and not what you think i said. I didn't put the word "assume" because it looked nice. I understand that many tribes and what-not came up with ways to explain their world. I also understand that the flood or water is seen in other creation stories. People have been always trying to explain their existence. That is why there are so many stories of how we were made. Since the context mentioned the flood and other things that hint to old testament believes, to me it seemed as if he is
So tell me this is it? Was it wrong for me to think that he may be also referring to Christians who believe in creationism.

It was not wrong, and sorry for the lack of observation in certain key words(hunger can cloud a bit). Besides, of the most notorious defenders of creationism and intelligent design are churches like Seventh-Day Adventist and other fundies.

[Mister_Greeny]

All of this RNA and protein talk has got me thinking... Can't proteins be synthesized in a complete chemical process without the aid of biological chemistry? I don't know much about the subject, but would it be possible that such conditions at the begining of the world might, say, "accidentally" produce such a protein and thus producing said "egg" in this RNA and protein debate?

[Lord Setar]

Caput Mortum

I love the fact that you only assume the view of western creationists.

Lets assume we have a world that is 4.3 billion years old. Let us also assume evolution is in fact real (I mean seriously if you don't believe in evolution in this day and age you have to be crazy.) we still to not have any idea how the first cells were created. The most basic form of a cell is still incredibly complex. The cell needs three things to continue life, RNA to store the information in the cell, ribosomes (or some similar organelle) to transcribe and produce protein and protein to preform all the cell functions. Protein can't be made without a ribosome and RNA, RNA can not be made without protein. So we have a chicken and the egg scenario where neither of them could have come first.

Except that you are incorrect. RNA is self-replicating, and it could have had simpler precursors. It didn't need proteins. Self-replicating cells, further, only require about six strands of DNA...

[Mister_Greeny]

Lord Setar

Except that you are incorrect. RNA is self-replicating, and it could have had simpler precursors. It didn't need proteins.

Nice. Here is something like that I think is a little more detailed.

[Jaaten Syric]

Voija, I can honestly say I'm surprised that no one (that I noticed at least) has brought up one of the classics in full; radiometric dating methods/age of the earth claims. While you did touch on them, I certainly think they warrant their own miraculous stories.

That and if we want to get real esoteric, variable speed of light claims designed to support a (much) younger universe, though those aren't exactly common...

[Pflibbitz]

You're leaving out one very good point. God did it and everything that confuses was done on purpose just to confuse. Therefore Creationism WINS!

God did it! Why? Because the Bible says He did.

Creationism explains everything!

[/scarcasm]

[Reniefuwa]

Pflibbitz

You're leaving out one very good point. God did it and everything that confuses was done on purpose just to confuse. Therefore Creationism WINS!

God did it! Why? Because the Bible says He did.

Creationism explains everything!

[/scarcasm]

Sarcasm? Sarcasm? What do you mean that was sarcasm? It makes perfect sense!

Except in the realm of science, until the existence of God can be proven, to be used as a premise to argument.

[VoijaRisa]

Bumpdated with new miracle of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

[Tettsure]

I thought in Occam's Razor, it is not that it is the one that is the simplest, for that is highly subjective, but the one with the least assumptions, unless that is what you referred to in regards to simplicity?

[VoijaRisa]

Tettsure

I thought in Occam's Razor, it is not that it is the one that is the simplest, for that is highly subjective, but the one with the least assumptions, unless that is what you referred to in regards to simplicity?

Less assumptions make it simpler as well as having less unseen agents. Both words I used mean the same thing effectively.