Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Prove this!!!REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditionsand showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.
For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
Oh my. It's back to the angry fundie persona.The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
Meyer is a hack. Like so many Christian creationist charlatans, he has no degree or advanced study in the field he writes about. That's why he essentially stole the material for his book from Behe.
You are free to sit, slack-jawed and drooling over his nonsense but don't expect the science community to consider his nonsense as anything but what it is: Christian dogma.
I just did.
You do you loatheth yourselfeth so mucheth?
As incoherent as so much of your nonsense. Unless you're plagiarizing my posts, you can't compose an understandable sentence.
Prove this!!!REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditionsand showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.
For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
As the fundie demonstrated with gargantuan fonts, there is nothing to suggest that the xtians gawds are needed in the functioning of nature. Natural processes can account for the diversity in nature.
Prove this!!!REAL SCIENCE ALERT.....
Origin of Cells
The appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
In the 1950s, Sidney Fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditionsand showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
More recent evidence indicates that RNA molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new RNA molecules as well as DNA molecules. Because DNA provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that DNA may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of RNA activity. Then DNA activity could have led to protein synthesis.
For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
ANY OTHER "THEORIES" THAT SPECULATE THAT CELL FORMATION WAS AN INTENTIONAL ACT BY AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER ARE SPECIOUS CONJECTURE.
THE ACT OF CELL "DESIGN" HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED IN NATURE ...
Once the scales fall from your eyes and you see the fairy tales for what they are, it is like see source code in the matrix.
As the fundie demonstrated with gargantuan fonts, there is nothing to suggest that the xtians gawds are needed in the functioning of nature. Natural processes can account for the diversity in nature.
The fundies will kick and scream like petulant children as their dogma assumes a supermagical causation, one which they are utterly unable to present a case for.
if that's so then you're the cheapest talker ever.Focus, fundie. I can call for support fields of testable science in favor of the cell being purely a byproduct of natural processes.Focus hollie,address his argument and while you're at it explain to us your argument that supports the cell being a product of a natural process. Why do you copy and paste others work by your judgment of meyer? They agree about the evidence of the cell so you lay an empty accusation agains't meyer.
Why do you avoid my questions hollie ?
Focus, fundie. What is supernatural about the cell?
You continually avoid addressing your claim that the cell is somehow supermagical.
Why do you avoid these questions?
Talk is cheap pal.
queer? how Christian of you! real west? I live in California, can't get much further west and still be on the continent .it's you, as nobody but you know what a rope sucker is?Is it me or are there a lot of rope suckers in this forum ?
That is what we call a queer in the real west.
We can't explain the cell
What we can't explain is how the cell and all of it's complexity could arise through a natural process.Anyone that believes the cell formed itself are just fooling themselves. The book UR was referring to points out the intricate parts and functions of the cell you either needed miracles or a very intelligent designer. Your natural process would have needed miracles a designer does not need miracles.
The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
Wait you have no answers for his questions but you call him ignorant
Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that I was calling him ignorant, as a person?
I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.
You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
not an answer .ahhh....no.Oh that went over your head to.
it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
if you could actually read you'd understand it.
You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
Do you actually read what you pretend to respond to? I didn't call him ignorant. I said he was arguing from ignorance. Where in this did you get that I was calling him ignorant, as a person?
I don't need answers for his questions when there is no evidence from which to draw proper conclusions. Again, you are suggesting an argument from ignorance.
You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.
not an answer .ahhh....no.
it's a: you don't even know what you don't know moment!
if you could actually read you'd understand it.
You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
Definition of PARANOIA
1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
the only posters that display that definition are you and detective douche bag.
really? "my side" whatever you imagine it to be, is a false assumption,what new world? the one you made up in your vivid imagination?I don't think your currency will be worth much in the new world.
were you struck on the head one too many times as a child?
Nope even your side believe in a new world coming ever heard of the new world order ? mine is just the new world spoken of in the scriptures. Need I remind you I am a man of faith as well.
your answer is "a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations "not an answer .You're are paranoid Christians are gonna take your rights away so through that paranoia you subscribe to scientific ignorance.
Definition of PARANOIA
1: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
the only posters that display that definition are you and detective douche bag.
Yep fits you perfectly.
wrong! LIFE is living organisms that's a scientific fact.Listen I will mention this one more time for the ones that missed it or for the ones that it went over their heads. .
Life comes from living organisms scientific fact.
You might as well be doing that since you said his arguments are derived from ignorance.
I am addressing his arguments, not him as a person. Logic 101.
Is that not what I just said. Is a person ignorant if they argue from the origins of ignorance ?
more proof you can't read...thanks! YWC wrote with the great gusto and authority that only first hand experience can convey.A rope sucker is someone who sucks the cum out of a priest's balls.
No you once again demonstrated you could not follow the conversation.
any other "theories" that speculate that cell formation was an intentional act by an intelligent designer are specious conjecture.real science alert.....
Origin of cells
the appearance of the first cells marked the origin of life on earth. However, before cells could form, the organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers. Examples of polymers are polysaccharides and proteins.
In the 1950s, sidney fox placed amino acids in primitive earth conditions and showed that amino acids would unite to form polymers called proteinoids. The proteinoids were apparently able to act as enzymes and catalyze organic reactions.
More recent evidence indicates that rna molecules have the ability to direct the synthesis of new rna molecules as well as dna molecules. Because dna provides the genetic code for protein synthesis, it is conceivable that dna may have formed in the primitive earth environment as a consequence of rna activity. Then dna activity could have led to protein synthesis.
For a cell to come into being, some sort of enclosing membrane is required to hold together the organic materials of the cytoplasm. A generation ago, scientists believed that membranous droplets formed spontaneously. These membranous droplets called protocells were presumed to be the first cell. Modem scientists believe, however, that protocells do not carry any genetic information and lack the internal organization of cells. Thus the protocell theory is not widely accepted. Several groups of scientists are currently investigating the synthesis of polypeptides and short nucleic acids on the surface of clay. The first cells remain a mystery.
Any other "theories" that speculate that cell formation was an intentional act by an intelligent designer are specious conjecture.
The act of cell "design" has never been observed in nature ...
conjecture alert,now you paste something that suggest many cells formed at once and you can't prove one did
"organic molecules must have united with one another to form more complex molecules called polymers."
You ignored the other problems like left hand right handed amino acids bonding to form these proteins and they had to be in the right sequence fairtytale boy. Daws what happens to the organism if both left handed and right handed amino acids bonded to for these proteins ?
The book by Meyer is a humorless joke.
You've never read it so how would know? This is common among blind followers of the Darwinistic religion. They do not search and prove anything for themselves but merely blindly follow the high priests, not questioning any of the dogma that is spoon fed to them as the eagerly lap up the lies.
There is no need to read it. It is an argument from induction at its base. I've watched him give hour long speeches on youtube. I can't imagine there is some amazing part of his theory that will be the dealbreaker, which I haven't yet heard. He can't escape from the fact the fundamental basis for his argument is a logical fallacy.
Hollie you are full of claims you can't back. I am giving you and your buddies that chance we are now discussing my major plus the work I performed for several years.
You're giving yourself credit for subject matter you are hopelessly ignorant of. Meyer did little more than plagiarize what Behe has rattled about.
Your ignorance is completely astounding!!! This is not one shred of truth in this statement and you just re-quoted this from Panda's Thumb propaganda, probably from some imbecile, who, like yourself, has never even read the book. Unbelievable!!
