Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Prokaryotes vs. Eukaryotes: Comparing the different types of cells​

1. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes differ in size and the presence of a membrane-bound nucleus​

Source: Prokaryotes vs. Eukaryotes

Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are the simplest known forms of life. I don’t know of any more simple than these. Perhaps, some of you experts do know. But, I do know that scientists have no means to create even these most simple of living beings. And “not in a million years” could we expect an accident to create life like this. They are too complex and we humans don’t fully understand such things. The genome of these single-cell creatures is too complex and they are more than the totality of their genome.

Why do you doubt? The existence of creatures requires the existence of a Creator.(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Point me to the post where anyone advocated for the idea of abiogenesis.

Also don’t see why you needed to link an article with information on the differences in cell types.
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
The existence of creatures requires the existence of a Creator.
Click to expand...
And, logically, the existence of a creator requires the existence of something created If nothing is created then there can be no creator. The two, creator and created, are mutually contingent. Neither can exist without the other.’
 
Eric_Hyom said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
The skeletal system is very simple. We make plastic and metal versions every day.
Click to expand...
Ok, Halloween is coming. But a robotic version of ourselves means a working model that can replicate all our movements. We can only make very crude models.
Click to expand...
But we are very crude models to begin with. That is, not designed very well at all. We show all signs of being the result of an evolutionary process that tried this and tried that and if it worked well enough then it would be left as it was.

If you start with the idea that we are the perfect result of a creationist event then you have a very low standard to begin with. We can’t see as well as other creatures. We can’t run as fast. We aren’t as strong. We don’t live as long. We can’t swim as well. We can’t fly unaided. We can’t jump as high. We aren’t as dextrous. Our sense of smell is almost useless. We can’t sense direction. Our joints aren’t made for walking upright. We can’t regrow limbs. I could go on all day with this list.

And you say we can’t even make an equivalent replicant? Everything that we make does at least one thing better than the best of us can do. Why does it have to be a robotic version of us?

There’s no point at all in copying a bad design.
 
Freddy said:
. I could go on all day with this list.
Click to expand...
Our sinuses make no sense unless we originally walked on all fours! Because we are upright and our sinuses can sort of drain just good enough, we manage. But, we often have sinus infections and even a simple cold makes us miserable.
 
Pattylt said:
40.png
Freddy:
. I could go on all day with this list.
Click to expand...
Our sinuses make no sense unless we originally walked on all fours! Because we are upright and our sinuses can sort of drain just good enough, we manage. But, we often have sinus infections and even a simple cold makes us miserable.
Click to expand...
Imagine being a brain in a vat so you had no idea how a human was assembled. And designing one yourself from first principles. Does anyone seriously contend that we’d end up with something like me?

Let’s look at eyes. Two is handy for 3d vision but let’s have them on the side of the head so we can see behind us as well as in front. They’re delicate so we need a nictating membrane. We’ll make it transparent so we can still see while protecting the eyes. And stronger muscles so we can change the focal length better and so that we don’t lose short vision as the muscles get older. And two or more foveas so we can see more detail at greater distances. And an ability to see a huge range of wavelengths including infra red and ultra violet. And a mirror layer behind the retina and as many rods as we can fit in (we’ll make the eyes very large) so we can see in very low light conditions. Plus a larger retina. And a separation of the cornea from the lens in a way that will allow us to see clearly underwater.

That’ll do for now. We’re into double figures for improvements just off the top of my head (and a quick Google to check what a fovea does). I’m sure there’s more we could add. And we could do this for weeks for every single aspect of the human body.

Sorry, Eric. The current design should be held up as an example of what not to do.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Sorry, Eric. The current design should be held up as an example of what not to do.
Click to expand...
Especially women’s knees. All women are knock kneed to some extent as our hips had to widen enough to deliver those babies large heads! If our pelvic design was tweaked, we could easily deliver and not have our knees take the strain of having to make up for the width. If our knees didn’t do this, we’d walk with our feet crossed! Instead, we get knee injuries much easier than men and arthritis in much higher numbers.

I can think of many slight tweaks that would greatly improve us! 🤣
 
“Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Wrong. Spriggina, like trilobites, were mainly a series of interlocking plates made of tough material. It’s classified as “Tough but uncalcified.”
Click to expand...
Sorry, Spriggina has neither an endo- or exxoskeleton - that is why you can’t cite any scientific literature that describes it as a “hard-bodied” organism. Noncalcified plates don’t qualify as “hard-bodied” in paleontology… Stop making stuff up.

A Trilobite, conversely, has an exoskeleton and is therefore described as “hard-bodied”.
 
Last edited:
What about Coronacollina acula? It’s over 500 million years old, placing it firmly in the precambrian. It has a distinct skeleton.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
No one claims He did. He was always, without beginning or end, outside of time.
Click to expand...
Gustave Eiffel was an intelligent designer, he designed a tower in Paris. He was not eternal. There is no requirement that an intelligent designer is eternal.

Where is your evidence to support your claim?
 
rossum said:
If you are going to talk about the odds, then you need to do the calculations first.
Click to expand...
What are the odds that the universe is oscillating…?

ZERO

I see you are having fun. Quoting science and things. But you’ll ignore the science that contradicts your own religious beliefs.
 
whatistrue said:
No, we cannot make a robotic version according to your definition yet. But we are coming closer all the time, and time is not up yet. Incremental changes over time. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...
Of course incremental changes will get us better functioning robots. But both you and I know, this can only happen with the help of intelligent design. Sounds even more familiar?
 
Freddy said:
If you start with the idea that we are the perfect result of a creationist event then you have a very low standard to begin with.
Click to expand...
Death is the greatest imperfection, so we are not created in the most perfect way.

Design is always a compromise. If you are going to design the fastest car to go round corners, it won’t have the same design features for a workman’s van.

If you are going to design a skeletal system that will have the range of functions and movements that we have, then you would have to make many compromises in design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top