Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[InChrist]

Somehow you believe that science does not know that two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form a molecule of water.
Somehow you believe that science does not know that molecules form protein chains.

How sad.

I didn't say science does not know that two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule form a water molecule or that science does not know that molecules form protein chains. I said... Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains"
Meaning that science has not demonstrated that proteins spontaneously arise or evolve from lifeless atoms.

The above paragraph is typical of your responses. It's not your own thoughts or your own writing. It's plagiarized from...

15 Answers to Evolutionist Misconceptions (Part 1) | Biblical Science Institute

• Living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules
• complex biochemical enzymes in biological cells read and translate the information stored in DNA in order to build both themselves and to replicate the DNA at the time of cell division.
• The instructions in the RNA are read by the ribosomes, which then produce the very enzymes necessary to do all this, whose instructions are encoded in the DNA.
• Each requires the other in order for the cell to reproduce.
• Therefore, any talk of the replication of simple, non-information bearing chemicals is utterly irrelevant to the origin of life, because life does not use simple, self-replicating molecules.

I seriously doubt you could even explain, in your own words, what the author is stating.

For the most part it is in my own words and basically says that a living cell with it's cell wall, energy, repair, reproductive systems and complex mechanisms with which genetic information is processed and used to create the building blocks of the cell could not have evolved by chance from simple non-living, information lacking molecules.

 

[InChrist]

So, no. You don't understand what punctuated equilibrium means.

That's not surprising, you thought it was a replacement of ToE.

I don't think it is a replacement for ToE, merely an adjustment.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis or theory, somewhat of a revision of Darwin's theory, proposing that the evolution of species proceeds in a relatively stable pattern for long periods of time, but at times suddenly new species evolve over shorter periods of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't say science does not know that two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule form a water molecule or that science does not know that molecules form protein chains. I said... Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains"
Meaning that science has not demonstrated that proteins spontaneously arise or evolve from lifeless atoms.






For the most part it is in my own words and basically says that a living cell with it's cell wall, energy, repair, reproductive systems and complex mechanisms with which genetic information is processed and used to create the building blocks of the cell could not have evolved by chance from simple non-living, information lacking molecules.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean when you say "by chance". That sounds as if you are trying to use a strawman argument.

 

[InChrist]

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean when you say "by chance". That sounds as if you are trying to use a strawman argument.

I don't know how you may be implying I'm trying to use a strawman argument, but anyway what I mean by chance is mindless, undirected .

 

[Audie]

I don't know how you may be implying I'm trying to use a strawman argument, but anyway what I mean by chance is mindless, undirected .

So it ranges from zero to one hundted percent probability.

So is this a useful concept, this "chance"? What is it good for?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know how you may be implying I'm trying to use a strawman argument, but anyway what I mean by chance is mindless, undirected .

That is an incredibly poor definition of chance. An object falling would be an example of "chance" by that definition.

 

[Bear Wild]

If the Genesis account is truly a myth, how is it possible to insult it. If it's a myth, it's a myth, but it's not. That's why one can try to insult it, by referring to it as a myth.
It's similar to a situation where someone steals something, and you call that person a thief. That's not an insult. The person is a thief.
However, if the person has not stolen anything, and you call them a thief, then you are trying to insult the person, but the insult doesn't make the person a thief.
So I understand, you are not attempting to discredit the Bible - what you call insult.


Sounds as though you are speaking of a carbon vessel.

Interesting argument. Not a true statement, but interesting.
I wonder why man's body does not stay on the surface of the earth like the alloys they use to build machines.
The Bible is not a science textbook, so any requirement for precise details regarding what it says would not seem reasonable imo.
However, when the Bible is involved on scientific finding, it usually is accurate.
For example...
A biomolecule or biological molecule is a loosely used term for molecules and ions that are present in organisms, essential to some typically biological process such as cell division, morphogenesis, or development. Biomolecules include large macromolecules (or polyanions) such as proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and nucleic acids, as well as small molecules such as primary metabolites, secondary metabolites, and natural products. A more general name for this class of material is biological materials.

Enhanced transcription and translation in clay hydrogel and implications for early life evolution
.... Here we mimic the confinement function of cells by creating a hydrogel made from geological clay minerals, which provides an efficient confinement environment for biomolecules. We also show that nucleic acids were concentrated in the clay hydrogel and were protected against nuclease, and that transcription and translation reactions were consistently enhanced. Taken together, our results support the importance of localized concentration and protection of biomolecules in early life evolution, and also implicate a clay hydrogel environment for biochemical reactions during early life evolution.

Hydrogels
A hydrogel is a network of polymer chains that are hydrophilic, sometimes found as a colloidal gel in which water is the dispersion medium. A three-dimensional solid results from the hydrophilic polymer chains being held together by cross-links. Because of the inherent cross-links, the structural integrity of the hydrogel network does not dissolve from the high concentration of water. Hydrogels are highly absorbent (they can contain over 90% water) natural or synthetic polymeric networks. Hydrogels also possess a degree of flexibility very similar to natural tissue, due to their significant water content.

Apparently, a clay hydrogel is ideal for not only holding together molecules, but very important for allowing dispersion.

That evidently would explain the balance of the water content within, that makes up the various parts of the body.
How Much Of Your Body Is Water? That All Depends.

The Bible isn't a science text book, but along with science we can get an idea of how easy it was for God to create.
Take another example - the creation of Eve.
....
We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton | Daily Mail Online
Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months
The team found that mice and humans were able to regrow removed ribs within months - and could be used in treating osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders.
To better understand this repair process, they removed sections of rib cartilage — ranging from three to five millimeters — from a related mammal, mice.
When they removed both rib cartilage and its surrounding sheath of tissue — called the 'perichondrium,' the missing sections failed to repair even after nine months.
However, when they removed rib cartilage but left its perichondrium, the missing sections entirely repaired within one to two months.
They also found that a perichondrium retains the ability to produce cartilage even when disconnected from the rib and displaced into nearby muscle tissue — further suggesting that the perichondrium contains progenitor or stem cells.

Evidently, we have evidence, that the accounts in the Bible, are not outrageous. It is quite easy for a being with far more wisdom, and technological advantage to do what is being done on a minuscule scale.
As Charles Darwin put it, "...it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant; nor do we know how ignorant we are."

Also from your argument, you should have no problem with the Quran then.
MAN CREATED FROM DUST AND WATER

So, for one thing God is more than capable. For another, the Bible is not a science journal, and does not go into detail on every thing mentioned, but is scientifically accurate, and for another, it is only a biased opinion, that asserts the Genesis account as myth.
Many people do tend to speculate, but that's what they do when trying to support the evolution theory, so it's not surprising they would try to do the same with regard to the creation account.

Clone... No, I think you are mixing up almighty, all wise creator with puny creation.

Personally, I think people who don't have a clue about the Bible, tend to make statements that are way out there. Understandably that happens when one does not study the Bible, but just look through it to find fault/criticize, or go on websites looking for ammunition to take shots at the Bible.
Often they come away shooting wildly, and missing by a mile, or the gun is just full of blanks.

Let me explain what I am saying.
The snake was not an intelligent talking creature. It was simply a snake. The one speaking was an intelligent life form way superior to both beast and man.
Since it seems you are not really interested in the truth about the Bible, I don't think it would make a difference to show you where that is.

I find it sad though, because it is quite unreasonable that one would imagine that all the species including the ones God never even made directly, or indirectly for that matter, would need to be fitted on the ark, and there is so much to gain from the Bible, if one stops nitpicking parts they can never disprove.
Oh, why do we project our biased opinions into a Biblical account, and then say it's wrong?
Of course it's wrong... when false ideas are inserted into it.

The evolution theory cannot even explain human intelligence. It hasn't even gotten off the ground by human intelligence.

The evolution of human intelligence
The nature and origins of hominid intelligence is a much-studied and much-debated topic, of natural interest to humans as the most successful and intelligent hominid species.

There is no universally accepted definition of intelligence, one definition is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend ideas and language, and learn." The evolution of hominid intelligence can be traced over its course for the past 10 million years, and attributed to specific environmental challenges.
..........
Whether our species has yet acquired sufficient intelligence to manage this responsibility is a matter for debate.

Sorry, but it's just a ridiculous theory, imo, and I do not express my opinion against the theory of evolution in an attempt to offend anyone, in the same way persons express their opinion against the Biblical accounts.

We are not made out of clay even if the medium may have good properties. If Eve was made from the rib of Adam she would have identical genetic makeup thus a clone.

 

[InChrist]

That is an incredibly poor definition of chance. An object falling would be an example of "chance" by that definition.

Yes, an object falling could be an example if we were talking about "chance" in general, but the subject here is specifically in reference to the idea of undirected life or a living cell evolving or spontaneously arising from lifeless atoms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, an object falling could be an example if we were talking about "chance" in general, but the subject here is specifically in reference to the idea of undirected life or a living cell evolving or spontaneously arising from lifeless atoms.

Neither one is "chance". That is why your argument was a strawman. But at any rate why did you even bring up abiogenesis? That is moving the goal posts and since evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis, though that probably was the original source of life, you in effect conceded the evolution debate.

 

[InChrist]

Neither one is "chance". That is why your argument was a strawman. But at any rate why did you even bring up abiogenesis? That is moving the goal posts and since evolution does not depend upon abiogenesis, though that probably was the original source of life, you in effect conceded the evolution debate.

Okay, well, I think we simply disagree on that point because clearly evolution cannot take place if there is no life to start with, so I don't realistically see how the origin of life can be divorced from evolution. Since abiogenesis is also about the early evolution of life from chemicals which then continued on and on to evolve to other life forms it is not a separate subject. If so, the why is it that all biology textbooks present evolution along with abiogenesis or chemical evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, well, I think we simply disagree on that point because clearly evolution cannot take place if there is no life to start with, so I don't realistically see how the origin of life can be divorced from evolution. Since abiogenesis is also about the early evolution of life from chemicals which then continued on and on to evolve to other life forms it is not a separate subject. If so, the why is it that all biology textbooks present evolution along with abiogenesis or chemical evolution?

Nope, you still have admitted that evolution occurred. It does not matter what was the original source of life. Evolution would have occurred whether it arose naturally on the Earth (most likely) was planted by aliens or came from space in some other fashion (second most likely) or if got magically poofed into existence by a god.

No matter how many times you repeat your error you will be wrong. Evolution deals with how life developed after it came into existence.

I always offer to discuss abiogenesis if you can be honest. Very few creationists can be. If you admit that life is the product of evolution I will gladly discuss abiogensis with you.

 

[Audie]

Okay, well, I think we simply disagree on that point because clearly evolution cannot take place if there is no life to start with, so I don't realistically see how the origin of life can be divorced from evolution. Since abiogenesis is also about the early evolution of life from chemicals which then continued on and on to evolve to other life forms it is not a separate subject. If so, the why is it that all biology textbooks present evolution along with abiogenesis or chemical evolution?

ToE is exactly the same whether life began by
godpoof or (other) abio.

Genesis, with its godpoof of all life as it is now, is clearly
wrong, it simply did not happen that way.

IF a god was involved in creating life, it was at the most
basic level.

 

[Astrophile]

Okay, well, I think we simply disagree on that point because clearly evolution cannot take place if there is no life to start with, so I don't realistically see how the origin of life can be divorced from evolution. Since abiogenesis is also about the early evolution of life from chemicals which then continued on and on to evolve to other life forms it is not a separate subject. If so, the why is it that all biology textbooks present evolution along with abiogenesis or chemical evolution?

This is obviously wrong. It is possible to study chemistry without knowing where the elements came from, or to understand the movements of the planets and comets round the Sun without knowing how they were formed, or to understand the stellar structure and stellar spectra without knowing how the stars were formed, or, indeed, to forecast the weather without knowing where the Earth's atmosphere came from. By the same argument, one can understand mutation, natural selection and speciation without knowing anything about the origin of life.

 

[Audie]

This is obviously wrong. It is possible to study chemistry without knowing where the elements came from, or to understand the movements of the planets and comets round the Sun without knowing how they were formed, or to understand the stellar structure and stellar spectra without knowing how the stars were formed, or, indeed, to forecast the weather without knowing where the Earth's atmosphere came from. By the same argument, one can understand mutation, natural selection and speciation without knowing anything about the origin of life.

I see that same thing about how origin of life is essential
to ToE over and over.

Sometimes in the form that first life has to be a cell,
which of course cannot randomly 747 junkyard self-
assemble therefore god.

I do not think it is susceptible to reason, as it is seen as a
keystone argument, if it fails, everything crumbles.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, an object falling could be an example if we were talking about "chance" in general, but the subject here is specifically in reference to the idea of undirected life or a living cell evolving or spontaneously arising from lifeless atoms.

Would the formation of a star through the action of gravity be an example of 'chance' by this definition?

Is there ay chemical reaction that is NOT by chance via this definition if no person is involved?

 

[ecco]

I didn't say science does not know that two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule form a water molecule or that science does not know that molecules form protein chains. I said... Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains"
Meaning that science has not demonstrated that proteins spontaneously arise or evolve from lifeless atoms.

Your italicized quote from the folks at the Biblical Science Institute is their opinion. The Biblical Science Institute professes a belief in a literal six day Genesis. The author (Lisle) of the article you plagiarized is an astrophysicist, not a biologist. Dr. Lisle is a self professed born again Christian whose stated mission is defense of a literal bible.

For the most part it is in my own words and basically says that a living cell with it's cell wall, energy, repair, reproductive systems and complex mechanisms with which genetic information is processed and used to create the building blocks of the cell could not have evolved by chance from simple non-living, information lacking molecules.

How can you say it's mostly in your own words when I showed five word for word unattributed extracts?

The parts that are your own words are your opinion based on the opinions of people who believe the writings of ancient people who were ignorant of science.

Simplified to opinions of opinions based on ignorance.

Atoms form moelecules
Atoms and molecules form amino acids
Amino acids for protein chains.

The mechanics of how they do this and the precise way they do this is well understood by modern day science.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, well, I think we simply disagree on that point because clearly evolution cannot take place if there is no life to start with, so I don't realistically see how the origin of life can be divorced from evolution. Since abiogenesis is also about the early evolution of life from chemicals which then continued on and on to evolve to other life forms it is not a separate subject. If so, the why is it that all biology textbooks present evolution along with abiogenesis or chemical evolution?

it is quite common in science that we learn how things work *now* well before we learned their origins. For example, we learned how planets orbit the sun long before we learned how they form from cosmic nebula. Knowing *how* something comes about isn't required to know how it works at present.

In the case of evolution, while it would be very nice to know how life originally formed, that question isn't required to know that species change over geological time. In other words, we can study evolution in detail without knowing anything about abiogenesis. We fully expect different mechanisms to be present in early life, just we we know there are different mechanisms in the formation of planets than in their orbits.

Biology textbooks present a small bit of abiogenesis at the beginning for the same reason that astronomy books discussing the planets have a short introduction to how they originally formed. In neither case is the introduction the essence of the course.

 

[ecco]

I don't think it is a replacement for ToE, merely an adjustment.

Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis or theory, somewhat of a revision of Darwin's theory, proposing that the evolution of species proceeds in a relatively stable pattern for long periods of time, but at times suddenly new species evolve over shorter periods of time.

Nice attempt at duck and dodge. Originally you said...

So ...now we have another theory "punctuated equilibrium". All the way of the evolutionist's "mountain of evidence" there are reasons to doubt.

If it's "merely an adjustment", then it's not "another theory" giving "reasons to doubt" as you stated.

Quite the contrary, it supports and enhances TOE just as Einstein's ideas supported and enhanced Newton's. Science knows more about the mechanics ToE then we did 200 years ago. Good. Does it change the general concepts of ToE? No. Does it make ToE wrong? No.

 

[Audie]

Nice attempt at duck and dodge. Originally you said...


If it's "merely an adjustment", then it's not "another theory" giving "reasons to doubt" as you stated.

Quite the contrary, it supports and enhances TOE just as Einstein's ideas supported and enhanced Newton's. Science knows more about the mechanics ToE then we did 200 years ago. Good. Does it change the general concepts of ToE? No. Does it make ToE wrong? No.

See if our hero will concede that point;
it is no more vital to the argument than
an error re colour of the cover of Origin
of Species first edition.

But creos are loathe to give the most irrelevant
inch.

 

[ecco]

We are not made out of clay even if the medium may have good properties. If Eve was made from the rib of Adam she would have identical genetic makeup thus a clone.

Originally, probably the penile bone. This would have provided answers to one and one-half of the ancients questions: Where did the first man and woman come from and why don't men have penile bones like dogs and other animals.