Creationism meets the protocell - Abiogenesis

Part of the problem with trying to understand the first protocells is in trying to understand what those early cells would be like. They certainly would have all the organelles of modern cells - you know like the cells that creationists like to rant and rave about the complexity of.

They'd probably be more like a bubbles of lipids, a broad group of naturally-occurring molecules, with those peptide we were discussing earlier trapped inside. Once again simple chemical reactions happening over time. I know that wasn't overly scientific, but from what I've read about lipids forming primitive, and inefficient, cell walls it more like bubbles than actual cells as we know them.

It's all interesting stuff, even if it is a little hard to understand. But that's where the creationist try to get you. They simply point out things that are complicated to understand, and hard for us lay-men to wrap our heads around. It's a bit like talking to my 6 year old. He'd rather get simple answers than actually have do do the work to figgure out the hard stuff.

My 9 year old get's frustrated trying to explain to him that the moon moves around the earth, and the earth moves around the son. All he knows is that they both rise and fall every day. So, in his mind that means that they both go around the earth, and he doesn't like the more complicated explainations. He also doesn't like being told that his easy answers are wrong, because he finds comfort in that simplicity.

When I want to know HOW I, like my daughter, turn to science for the answers. But if I want to try and understand the "Why" behind those hows I have to resort to philosophy or religion. Science doesn't answer questions as to why things work the way they do only how those things happen. As a result, my daughter enjoys the question "Why" because there is no right or wrong answer, but it sure is fun to speculate.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Creationism
• abiogenesis
• evolution
• bible
• religion
• protocells
• genesis
• chemistry

[pmedic063252]

Abiogenisis has not created ONE living cell. It still remains a fairy tale.

[13Heathens]

@TheColaGoodfellow I was referencing the first recorded reference to the nation of Israel, which was recorded on an Egyptian tablet which after detailing several substantial battles included text saying (in essence) "and we destroyed the people Isreal" The mention was more as a footnote than anything else. There's no 3rd party reference to the nation prior to that.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

I correct myself. Although Shechem did play a big part in israelite history, the exact date of it being taken is unsure in the Bible. But it did play a big part as the first capital.

[01101100d]

@TheColaGoodfellow Well that depends on your translations and what you want it to say. I take things at face value mate. The first sentence can't be translated in the way you've put, so why the rest?

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

There's plenty of reason to believe the Habiru were the early Israelites, Shechem was taken by both of them in the 14th century BCE according to the Bible and the Amarna Letters, and was Israels first capital.

They began without a king as semi-nomads, just like the Habiru.

If such comparisons as yours between the Flood and teh epic of Glilgamesh have any value, these especially do.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

When non biblical things support the bible, you say it was copied. When they don't you say there's no evidence. You can't be impressed, you can't call that reason.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"if tho doth not hate thine mother and thine father and thine sister and thine brethren, tho shalt not be my disciple."

And the explanation for this is that in greek it would be more "If you love them (compared to me) you can not be my disciple."

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@13Heathens

"if tho doth not hate thine mother and thine father and thine sister and thine brethren, tho shalt not be my disciple."

Again, same as before.

If they were altering scriptures, there wouldn't be any sign of a "contradiction". if the scribes were dishonest such things wouldn't exist, unless there truly was an explanation for it being there.

[TheColaGoodfellow]

@01101100d

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth"

Jesus' teachings were going to cause a lot of controversy. That's what he was saying here. Believing in Jesus set a man against all of his Jewish parents that didn't agree.

To say it's a contradiction isn't really a very fair or reasonable opinion. If scribes were on purposely altering scriptures then surely such a glaring problem would have been altered atleast once over the course of the thousands of copies that were made....

[01101100d]

@13Heathens Just been reading up on that and it's really facinating stuff to learn about. To see how everything comes together. My main area is genetics rather than history when dealing with creationists. Trying to finish with where i left off from on my education though, but it's hard in my country to do anything at this time. No help for my position unless i want to stay at home doing nothing with myself which seems odd and unfair.