cathy wrote:Mr Dunday you are looking at this the wrong way, in a way that does show a lack of understanding of science.
On several ocassions you were asked to define what you meant by life. When you were saying life comes from life and the same question is pertinent now you are talking about the cell.
The reason you were asked to define life is that life has many different features. For example reproduction, excretion some kind of metabolism. Children here learn that very early on in a simplified from using the mneumonic MRS GREN to help them. Obviously learning a more sophisticated version later on should they consider taking biology further.
Now no scientist thinks living cells just appeared. Because that would be highly improbable. What they look at is the many features that make up the simplest living things and look to see which are most likely to have appeared first (current research is most interested in metabolism or SIMPLE replication - not of cells). Some scientists look at that. Now in this search for the first features of early life, there are many interesting hypothesis.
They are not 'designing' life in that research as you've suggested earlier when trying unsuccessfully to defend the religious view that is ID. They are trying instead to repllicate the early conditions of life and the chemicals that would be present. I suggest you read some of that research.
Others scientists look at how a new feature could have arisen once some features are in place or how very simple things could have evolved - adding to the features that would eventually lead to life. Others look at how single cells could become groups of cells or how smaller simpler cells could join together to form more complex eukaryotic cells via something called endosymbiosis. I'm trying to simplify this as much as possible for you cos if you've been on creationist sites your understanding of biology will have been warped and mangled.
Do you understand the point I'm trying to make? For all stages to happen simultaneously to give a cell is unlikely. But each step is far more likely and did happen as we do have life. It is a slow building bit by bit process not a magic wand shove it all together and there you go one. It does not preclude a God, merely makes him clever enough to understand chemistry. Though creationists on the websites you frequent do preclude a God by making him dependent on their simplistic understanding of the world and too stupid to understand chemistry.
And not knowing is not an issue. 200 years ago we didn't know how the blood circulated or what the pancreas did. That wasn't a reason to stop looking and say blood must towed around by magic fairies. We kept looking till we found it. And 300 years ago we didn't even know the cell existed let alone what it did. That doesn't mean it didn't.
Not knowing is what science thrives on. That is science. If creationists had been around 300 years ago they'd have been saying 'cells - impossible and cos you don't know they exist yet thats a real problem for evolution'. That is the argument you are using now. Sounds stupid doesn't it.
Secondly your Harley example is not very good. Firstly cos machines are very different to living things. However leaving that aside, I understand the analogy you are trying to make. But it doesn't work I'm afraid.
For it to work as you want it to ie to support the notion that only a designer can come up with something complex like life, someone at the very start of human innovation, hundreds of thousands of years ago should have designed and built the Harley or something equally technically complex from scratch without calling on prior technologies, science and inventions. That did not happen.
The Harley is the culmination of years of innovation, invention, scientific discovery, earlier models and so on. The Harley in its current form couldn't be built till someone had developed ways of extracting and working metals, refining and improving them. That process has been 'evolving' for thousands of years.
It couldn't be built till someone had understood how to use power to turn wheels and then developed that power from steam to petrol - again over hundreds of years. The steam engine is just someone co opting a kettle to turn wheels rather than make tea after all.
In short the Harley is something that slowly evolved over time from tiny improvements to simpler things like carts and from using simpler pieces of knowledge like steam to petrol that gradually came together stretching back to the wheel. The Harley is just an improvement or change or adaptation (or not) on something, which was in itself an improvement. A little bit like the bacterial flagellum which can be traced back to a simple pore or blood clotting or a myriad other things that desperate IDers lie about.
Now sorry if this has sounded over simplistic and patronising, but spending any time at all on creationist sites (and your arguments are straight from them Mr Dunday - including the Harley one) does rot critical faculties so I've gone back to very, very basic explanations. My only advice is ditch creationism Mr Dunday. There is nothing good about it. It makes religion and God a joke.
Here is the definition of life
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
So a cell is also life. There is no evidence that life could just happen . As you say it s very unlikely. But with DNA it is impossible with out creation. That DNA has to be coded. There is no randomness in that. Even a little mistake can cause huge damage. Some times the scientists like to throw a huge number, of the probability of DNA being coded. This sometimes make many think it is possible, no matter how remote it is. Sort of like gambling. But this is not gambling. This is ,say, for a million throws of the dice, and you have 4 dice, you have to get every throw, down perfectly every time.Not just the correct numbers but also the dice have to the table in the correct sequence. This has nothing to do with odds.
That's is true creationist did not know about cells 300 years ago. Neither did the scientists. When they found out they should have known something was wrong, with their ideas. Cells function like little factories.They do not happen by accident. When they discovered DNA and then the code in it, that really killed 'evolution' and a non creative start to life. There is no possible way the DNA could happen by chance or even 'evolve into the code needed. The scientist need specialized machines even to read it. Yet in cells the DNA is separated and copied and put back together. It also coordinates, all the processes in the cells, it tells the proteins where to go and at what time and how to fold for a specific purpose.
Cells are little machines, the difference is the are biological. But even the scientist say if computers were made with biological materials they would be much faster and hold a lot more information. They barley have an idea what the brain is all about. This is not by chance. Where would the scientists begin if they wanted to create a brain?
Actually these are my examples. I am starting to see my little examples show up from others now.
Please do not be afraid to use simple explanations. Einstein said if it is simple and elegant it probably is true.
That's why no one has been able to break my 3 facts with evidence.
It is not only complicated. It is a staggering amount of precise code, in the DNA, and cells have to be complete be fore they work, and are considered life. The scientist will never get past this. It is like a computer scientist writing code. If a key board was hit with branches in the wind and was producing letters on the screen, how likely is it likely to produce and long complicated program? It would never happen. That is the difference of intelligence and random hits of those branches.
Actually religions has given God a bad name. They have not represented, God and creation very well. Actually they have pushed many take up other ideas. Not just because of the science but the understanding of the bible and hypocritical examples that they are.
I certainty get why many think God or the bible is a joke. But just like their ideas about life, the scientists assume the bible is not correct because of the actions of many religions. Just as they assume think things just happened. So the scientists have done the same things as some religions.
If you look at the actual evidence, there is nothing that supports what they are saying. They can't show us 'evolution' or the origins as they hypothesize.
my 3 facts hold
1 life comes from life
2 a human comes from humans
2 there is design in life.
You have to show with evidence that these are wrong. But the scientist can't do that. They can only use there hypotheses as evidence. That is circular thinking and not scientific.
