Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[InChrist]

That is true. What is also true, is that in their descriptions of the natural laws the were discovering, they never invoked any God(s) in the explanations of those laws. Instead, they just explained how they work all on their own. That's quite telling, don't you think?

Yes, it is quite telling. The founders of modern science, many, if not most, were theists who did not need to invoke God because the foundation... of their study, investigation, and observation which led to their theories, which after verification led to established laws of science... was God. Their science was based in the understanding that there was an Intelligence responsible for the order of the natural world and universe.

What is also quite telling is that now we have atheistic evolutionary scientists who are constantly invoking the god of Darwinian natural selection. Darwinist evolutionists deny any reference to intelligence or design with their prior commitment to the undirected, mindless, purposeless process of natural selection, all the while they are unable to avoid using words or expressions which indicate design or purpose by saying things, such as: natural selection will steer, commandeered by natural selection, appearance of design, illusion of design., apparent design, architect, plans, etc. Even more telling, from some of the things I've read by evolutionists is the way life-producing, god-like attributes are applied to nature/ Darwinian natural selection as the sole creative force responsible for life. Have we come full circle back around to paganism and the worship of nature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mules fall short in one aspect (the ability to reproduce), but their horse and donkey parents don't. Mules still sprang from some parental genetic information, they are composed of cells, breathe, move, and require energy. Crystals display growth, but none of the other qualities of living organisms.




The line is a living cell. All living organisms must have cells with DNA
.

Would a cell with just RNA be alive?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I do try to keep the debate at a higher level. Here is a helpful hint:

Don't use garbage sources as you have for your recent posts. You may use them for ideas to find research that supports your beliefs, link the original research, not the biased and very probably incorrect interpretation by a terribly biased source.

You did it!.Thank you. I'll keep it in mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is quite telling. The founders of modern science, many, if not most, were theists who did not need to invoke God because the foundation... of their study, investigation, and observation which led to their theories, which after verification led to established laws of science... was God. Their science was based in the understanding that there was an Intelligence responsible for the order of the natural world and universe.

What is also quite telling is that now we have atheistic evolutionary scientists who are constantly invoking the god of Darwinian natural selection. Darwinist evolutionists deny any reference to intelligence or design with their prior commitment to the undirected, mindless, purposeless process of natural selection, all the while they are unable to avoid using words or expressions which indicate design or purpose by saying things, such as: natural selection will steer, commandeered by natural selection, appearance of design, illusion of design., apparent design, architect, plans, etc. Even more telling, from some of the things I've read by evolutionists is the way life-producing, god-like attributes are applied to nature/ Darwinian natural selection as the sole creative force responsible for life. Have we come full circle back around to paganism and the worship of nature?

There is no need for a God when one has evidence. There are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism. You have to invoke a God for your beliefs and are merely projecting your flaws upon others when you claim that they have a god.

 

[Audie]

There is no need for a God when one has evidence. There are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution and none for creationism. You have to invoke a God for your beliefs and are merely projecting your flaws upon others when you claim that they have a god.

And you are out there chasing the squirrel
thro' the treetops, life/nonlife left far behind.

 

[ecco]

Mules fall short in one aspect (the ability to reproduce), but their horse and donkey parents don't. Mules still sprang from some parental genetic information, they are composed of cells, breathe, move, and require energy. Crystals display growth, but none of the other qualities of living organisms.

Backtracking? That's not what your "definition" stated: (my emphases)

Anyway...
Living things are alive and active, made up of cells which exhibit characteristics of life, growth, movement, reproduction, response to stimuli, and require energy for daily activities.

Non-livings things do not exhibit these characteristics of life. They do not grow, respire,
require energy, move, reproduce, etc.

I noted that mules and crystals violate your assertions.


Now you try with...

The line is a living cell. All living organisms must have cells with DNA.

Since viruses don't have cells, you just placed them into the category of non-living along with rocks.

I'll try again...

Where / what is the bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"?

So far, you've ducked twice and were wrong three times.



ETA: Maybe you should Google "where is the line between life and non-life" and get some knowledge before responding. You'll find that science does not have a clear cut answer.

 

[InChrist]

Since viruses don't have cells, you just placed them into the category of non-living along with rocks.

Viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolize on their own which are characteristics of all living organisms. As obligate intracellular parasites they are dependent on a host cell for nutrition and reproduction. So viruses are not considered to be true living organisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolize on their own which are characteristics of all living organisms. As obligate intracellular parasites they are dependent on a host cell for nutrition and reproduction. So viruses are not considered to be true living organisms.

So DNA is not the "thin line".

What was it again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course @InChrist does not seem to realize that he has conceded the evolution argument. Evolution deals with life after it forms. By moving the goal posts past that point he has conceded what happens after life forms. In other words, he has admitted to being an ape.

 

[ecco]

ETA: Maybe you should Google "where is the line between life and non-life" and get some knowledge before responding. You'll find that science does not have a clear cut answer.

Viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolize on their own which are characteristics of all living organisms. As obligate intracellular parasites they are dependent on a host cell for nutrition and reproduction. So viruses are not considered to be true living organisms.

As soon as I read the words "obligate intracellular parasites" I knew the above did not come your own thinking. There is no way you knew that term before you looked up "virus". You found something that you thought furthered your argument and deceitfully plagiarized.

I guess I need to take the time to remind you of forum protocol that requires that a poster clearly indicates when they are posting something taken from a source other than themselves. It looks like this...

First result from googling "are viruses life"...

Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection, but lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are generally considered necessary to count as life.​

Now, back to the question that has you scrambling...

Where / what is the bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"?

Is a virus like a rock or is a virus more closely related to a cell? Even your own cut and paste hedges in its phrasing "true living organisms". My linked article goes further: Viruses are considered by some to be a life form.

See... there is no 'bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"'. You need to stop taking your "scientific knowledge" from stories that were written thousands of years ago and, instead, learn what is known about the world based on current research.




ETA: Maybe you should try to really understand your own tagline: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

 

[Audie]

So DNA is not the "thin line".

What was it again?

"Bright line"

 

[Audie]

As soon as I read the words "obligate intracellular parasites" I knew the above did not come your own thinking.

ETA: Maybe you should try to really understand your own tagline: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

Yes, just the word "obligate" was kind of like a
sign. (I bet he does not know what it means)

There are plenty of obligate intracellular parasites, besides viruses.
Fungi and bacteria, say.

As for understanding, well, it is one thing to read definitions
and books, an entirely different matter to think and understand.

Our hero most obviously did not even understand my
question, for lo, those who do would not have fallen for it.

 

[InChrist]

Would a cell with just RNA be alive?

No. Although, they may share some characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life.


"The historical origin of life can never be recreated precisely, so without a reliable time machine, one must instead address the related question of whether life could ever be created in a laboratory. This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline. "We're not trying to play back the tape," says Lincoln of their work, "but it might tell us how you go about starting the process of understanding the emergence of life in the lab."

Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."

The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze. But, while the building blocks likely would have been simpler, the work does finally show that a simpler form of RNA-based life is at least possible, which should drive further research to explore the RNA World theory of life's origins."
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time


What is RNA? | RNA Society

 

[InChrist]

So DNA is not the "thin line".

What was it again?

I said...
All living organisms must have cells with DNA

 

[InChrist]

As soon as I read the words "obligate intracellular parasites" I knew the above did not come your own thinking. There is no way you knew that term before you looked up "virus". You found something that you thought furthered your argument and deceitfully plagiarized.

I guess I need to take the time to remind you of forum protocol that requires that a poster clearly indicates when they are posting something taken from a source other than themselves. It looks like this...

First result from googling "are viruses life"...

Viruses are considered by some to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection, but lack key characteristics (such as cell structure) that are generally considered necessary to count as life.​

Now, back to the question that has you scrambling...


Is a virus like a rock or is a virus more closely related to a cell? Even your own cut and paste hedges in its phrasing "true living organisms". My linked article goes further: Viruses are considered by some to be a life form.

See... there is no 'bright line distinction between "life" and "non life"'. You need to stop taking your "scientific knowledge" from stories that were written thousands of years ago and, instead, learn what is known about the world based on current research.




ETA: Maybe you should try to really understand your own tagline: old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

As I said, a virus can only live or reproduce inside a living host cell.



Obligate intracellular parasites cannot reproduce outside their host cell, meaning that the parasite's reproduction is entirely reliant on intracellular resources.
Intracellular parasite - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Although, they may share some characteristics of life, they are not themselves a form of life.


"The historical origin of life can never be recreated precisely, so without a reliable time machine, one must instead address the related question of whether life could ever be created in a laboratory. This could, of course, shed light on what the beginning of life might have looked like, at least in outline. "We're not trying to play back the tape," says Lincoln of their work, "but it might tell us how you go about starting the process of understanding the emergence of life in the lab."

Joyce says that only when a system is developed in the lab that has the capability of evolving novel functions on its own can it be properly called life. "We're knocking on that door," he says, "But of course we haven't achieved that."

The subunits in the enzymes the team constructed each contain many nucleotides, so they are relatively complex and not something that would have been found floating in the primordial ooze. But, while the building blocks likely would have been simpler, the work does finally show that a simpler form of RNA-based life is at least possible, which should drive further research to explore the RNA World theory of life's origins."
How Did Life Begin? RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed For First Time


What is RNA? | RNA Society

That quote does not support your claim. Did you understand it?

Why can't RNA based life exist?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said...
All living organisms must have cells with DNA

That is the case now. It is not thought to have been always the case. The article that you quoted from told you how they are very close to making a RNA that could have been used early on in the history of life.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said...
All living organisms must have cells with DNA

Viruses have DNA. They have wall, just as cells do. Why are they not living? Not only that but viruses can evolve. They are rather specialized today since they have had over three billion years to evolve. Today's complex viruses do not man that the earliest ones were complex.

 

[InChrist]

Of course @InChrist does not seem to realize that he has conceded the evolution argument. Evolution deals with life after it forms. By moving the goal posts past that point he has conceded what happens after life forms. In other words, he has admitted to being an ape.

Yes, the theory of evolution deals with life...after it already exists. I'm not moving the goal post. I just find it absurd that evolutionists blithely skip over the origin of life as if that is irrelevant or has no impact on life thereafter. I do not concede to the evolution argument because Darwinian evolution can't even get a start without LIFE. Without even an understanding of the origin of life I don't believe there can be an accurate understanding of the progression of life.

 

[InChrist]

That is the case now. It is not thought to have been always the case. The article that you quoted from told you how they are very close to making a RNA that could have been used early on in the history of life.

Yes, I realize the article said that, but it is still speculation.