Jump to content


Photo

A "simple Cell"?


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

#1 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 18 February 2009 - 09:56 AM

When ToE was proposed by Darwin, there was a scientific belief that cells were simple. Note the use of the term belief. There was no evidence for this claim.

The definition of simple is:

having few parts; not complex or complicated or involved


Now today, we know that there is no such thing as a simple cell. In fact it is an oxymoron. The use of this term should be banned from scientific use. Especially biological use. The term is mythological in nature and religious in nature.

Yet, science continues to use this term. It's part of the brain washing process of education.

My question is, can any evolutionist, agnostic, or atheist defend the use of this term.

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 18 February 2009 - 10:46 AM

Here are some really cool videos:

CzPGhYiGyZ8

m73i1Zk8EA0

D1_-mQS_FZ0

#3 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 18 February 2009 - 10:58 AM

Now today, we know that there is no such thing as a simple cell.  In fact it is an oxymoron. The use of this term should be banned from scientific use.  Especially biological use.  The term is mythological in nature and religious in nature.

Yet, science continues to use this term.  It's part of the brain washing process of education.

My question is, can any evolutionist, agnostic, or atheist defend the use of this term.

View Post

I've noticed that the same crew who go about calling cells "simple" prefer to call snowflakes "complex".

#4 Mirrordin

Mirrordin

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Biology, biochemistry, the bible proclaimings its message and loving God
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • San Diego California

Posted 18 February 2009 - 12:32 PM

Ok when i first saw this thread I overlooked the quotations and almost spit water everywhere.

I remember watching a documentary that in darwins day there was a beleif that nonlife came from life all the time!

Example: raw meat would be left out as an experiment and the arrival of maggots would be inorganic to organic guess they overlooked the flies.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 February 2009 - 01:25 PM

Scientists in this country will probibily never admit it because paychecks determine truth not the evidence,but scientists in India certainly agree that science does'nt have a clue.


He concludes by saying that “the DNA mechanism is a common thread of all modern organisms, plants, animals, all living things.

“The fact that all organisms share the same DNA-based mechanism for genetic transmission suggests that life emerged on earth only once during the planet’s entire history but the timing remains unknown.

Lal, who studied over 60 relevant research papers in the fields of genetics, astrobiology and space science, has concluded that science has no clue about how life began. :huh:

(Ranjana Narayan can be contacted at ranjana.n@ians.in)


http://www.thaindian.....ed-life-on-ea...





Enjoy.

#6 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:02 AM

Thanks guys,

I guess there are no evolutionists who wish to defend te use of this term??

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:11 AM

Thanks guys,

I guess there are no evolutionists who wish to defend te use of this term??

View Post

Here I'll try...

GodOfTheGaps!

#8 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:41 AM

Here I'll try...

GodOfTheGaps!

View Post


I think they would say
"NatureOfTheGaps!"

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:55 AM

I think they would say
"NatureOfTheGaps!"

View Post


Hey performedge, did I show you this thread?

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1878

It was lots of fun. It was my first thread that I ever posted here. It was a learn as I go experience. It has lots of cool links. Give her a look, if you haven't already.

#10 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 February 2009 - 09:55 AM

Thanks guys,

I guess there are no evolutionists who wish to defend te use of this term??

View Post


There are quite a few threads they abstain from commenting in :lol:

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 March 2009 - 10:38 PM

Inside every single living cell in your body you have little protein motors called kinesin which transport organelles along micro tubule tracks. As you watch these clips keep in mind that the ordinary living cell in the human body, like the common epithelial type cells which multiple and die rapidly, have this process occurring numerous times right now in your body per every cell. The common epithelial cell's size is about the size that would allow 40 to be stacked side by side stretching across the diameter of a period at the end of a sentence:

686qX5yzksU

http://pubs.acs.org/...or/chemEng.html

That big sack being dragged along by the kinesin is a vesicle which are basically bags of stuff, often enzymes, the cell needs to move from one side to another. :blink:

#12 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 March 2009 - 12:18 AM

Is this even an argument???

#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 March 2009 - 07:41 AM

Is this even an argument???

View Post

Evidently, it is not. Would you like to add anything constructive to this discussion?

I noticed that your profile says Christian, and Theistic Evolutionist. What's the point if you can't see that the heavens declare the glory of God?

If you can't praise God for the marvel of His creation what do you base your beliefs on? Maybe we should start a thread exploring why people believe in God but scoff at His work like Ken Miller.

#14 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2009 - 12:13 AM

Nerve cells are some of the most mysterious cells in the body:

Posted Image

Posted Image

XgIaAs_ONG4

#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2009 - 12:19 AM

Just think; when we watch all those cool videos about how cells work, we are often just watching house cleaning type functions. If you want your head to nearly explode try to imagine all that house cleaning and maintenance, then add to the mix all the specialized functions specific to certain types of cells.

Some cells like epithelial cells live and die quickly while other cells like nerves cells may live as long as you do. :o

Cells like red blood cells live to die they are bred and programed to shed their own life so they are more viable to distribute nutrients more efficiently by sacrificing themselves, eliminating their own need for oxygen and food.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2051

#16 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2009 - 12:32 AM

This link is a must watch.

http://multimedia.mc..._innerlife.html

If you have a slow connection, suffer, let this video download, you won't regret it. In case you don't know, when this video says leukocytes it's talking about white blood cells. Leukocytes are extremely cool because they are cells with a mind of their own. They are free moving with a loose connection to blood vessel walls but they can direct themselves out of the vessel to do house cleaning. :o

Look at this Leukocyte going after a bacteria... Lunch Time!

Posted Image

#17 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 07 March 2009 - 08:16 AM

Leukocytes are extremely cool because they are cells with a mind of their own. They are free moving with a loose connection to blood vessel walls but they can direct themselves out of the vessel to do house cleaning.

View Post


Excellent links Adam. But they posit more quandaries for the evolutionists!

To look at the Leukocyte from a skeptical evolutionary standpoint, one must ask themselves:

How did the Leukocytes develop a “mind of their own”? I ask this because it begs the question; how did the body heal itself prior to the Leukocyte? Or how did the body rationalize the need a healing for itself prior to reasoning (this is a question that befuddles the evolutionist)? Because, if the body didn’t have a defensive mechanism prior to the Leukocyte, how did the body survive?

If all of the mechanisms (and there are many) our bodies require to survive were not in place already (from the beginning), how did the body survive? Why was life not snuffed out in its infancy?

If evolution has the ability to do all the things evolutionists claim, how can it not be a metaphysical life-force? Guidance requires intelligence, does it not?

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 March 2009 - 11:56 AM

Guidance requires intelligence, does it not?

View Post

Not in evolution fairytale land. It's just so hard to believe in God because all the evidence for Him is only an illusion. :o

Yes, you are right. The detection of intelligent causation is so evident, and apparent, especially in biology, it's like denying the nose on your face to ignore it.

Why do you think it took Satan 5850 years to make popular the notion of believing that godlessness is intellectually honest? Until now, man made gods were needed to replace the True and living God. Sure we people have been Godless and prideful in our behavior all this time but now it's finally cool and hip and all that jazz :) for the first time to reject God and settle for the meaninglessness that ultimately follows.

It's all just a Cosmic oddity, a lucky roll of Dice. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 March 2009 - 01:51 PM

Why do you think it took Satan 5850 years to make popular the notion of believing that godlessness is intellectually honest? Until now, man made gods were needed to replace the True and living God. Sure we people have been Godless and prideful in our behavior all this time but now it's finally cool and hip and all that jazz :o for the first time to reject God and settle for the meaninglessness that ultimately follows.

It's all just a Cosmic oddity, a lucky roll of Dice. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

View Post

The cryptogoddess was somewhat of an innovation. It wasn't entirely new; there were already terms like 'nature' and 'providence'. The whole trick is to assert mindlessness where it cannot be. Mindless things don't make intelligent decisions. All previous pantheistic and polytheistic entities were understood to have minds. This suggests that folks previously had sense enough to understand that thought requires a mind, and at some point the situation took a drastic turn for the worse.

#20 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 08 March 2009 - 11:26 AM

With regard to the OP, I think I'd be inclined to cut Mr Darwin and the scientists of their time just a wee bit of slack in their use of the word 'simple'....... they *simply* didn't have the technical apparatus which would give them the ability to look deeper into the insides of cells to see the true complexity therein.......

I think it's still fair enough to describe a particular cell as 'simple' today in a relative sense to perhaps another, more complex cell or groups of cells.......




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users