(November 11, 2014 at 3:10 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 8:24 pm)snowtracks Wrote: atheistic naturalism has a gapping hole in logic which is that human beings have a mind that displays personhood, intentionality, emotions, etc.; but the origin of that is mindless and nonconscious. So the end product reflects back on something that can’t reflect forward.
consciousness to consciousness, consciousness to nonconscious makes sense. nonconscious to consciousness is nonsense. about time you gave the 'mind' it's due. after all, it's order of magnitude capabilities over matter is infinity.

What gapping hole? this is all explained perfectly well by evolution.

Commencing at the cell level - for instance the cell’s membranes (wall) is incredibly complex. Lipids and proteins interact to assemble bilayers which function much like cross beams which are called phospholipids shaped like a balloon with two strings attached, and are assembled in a tail-to-tail configuration. The balloon ends forms the inner and
outer surfaces. The phospholipids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid are combination of cholesterol, oils, fats, etc.
The protein molecules on the other hand bind to the inner and outer surfaces and function as receptors that provide the cell capability to communicate with its external environment; they do this by catalyzing chemical reactions at both the inner and outer surfaces. Another function is to transport material across the cell’s membrane and also forms pores and channels though it.
So what needs to be in place from the start is a protocell that has complete bilayer formation securely and properly tail-to-tail assembled that encompass the total cell - forming a ‘sandwich bag’ structure that provides a sealed environment. Well of course it would have to surround the cell’s machinery already inside which would have to be likewise fully functional as is the membrane. It’s all or nothing - the nucleus and other parts and the dna scripting for the likes of metabolic and replication must be there inside the membrane in place, in real time, in perfect working order. The border can’t be just 99% ‘evolved’ or the cell doesn’t survive.
If the membrane developed through natural processes, evolutionary models must account for its occurrence early the origin of life pathway. This hasn’t been done, forget about ‘perfectly’; in fact not even close. This is not simple to more complex, this is fully complex.

Neutral description of physiological processes, probably not found in the bible:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:49 am)snowtracks Wrote: Commencing at the cell level - for instance the cell’s membranes (wall) is incredibly complex. Lipids and proteins interact to assemble bilayers which function much like cross beams which are called phospholipids shaped like a balloon with two strings attached, and are assembled in a tail-to-tail configuration. The balloon ends forms the inner and
outer surfaces. The phospholipids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid are combination of cholesterol, oils, fats, etc.
The protein molecules on the other hand bind to the inner and outer surfaces and function as receptors that provide the cell capability to communicate with its external environment; they do this by catalyzing chemical reactions at both the inner and outer surfaces. Another function is to transport material across the cell’s membrane and also forms pores and channels though it.

Lame ass attempt to make assumptions about the need for a supernatural foundation to explain all those wonderful natural processes:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:49 am)snowtracks Wrote: So what needs to be in place from the start is a protocell that has complete bilayer formation securely and properly tail-to-tail assembled that encompass the total cell - forming a ‘sandwich bag’ structure that provides a sealed environment. Well of course it would have to surround the cell’s machinery already inside which would have to be likewise fully functional as is the membrane. It’s all or nothing - the nucleus and other parts and the dna scripting for the likes of metabolic and replication must be there inside the membrane in place, in real time, in perfect working order. The border can’t be just 99% ‘evolved’ or the cell doesn’t survive.
If the membrane developed through natural processes, evolutionary models must account for its occurrence early the origin of life pathway. This hasn’t been done, forget about ‘perfectly’; in fact not even close. This is not simple to more complex, this is fully complex.

Kudos at least for quoting the source of the neutral description of biological processes, rather than pretending to have a broad knowledge base the way you usually do.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:49 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 11, 2014 at 3:10 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: What gapping hole? this is all explained perfectly well by evolution.

Commencing at the cell level - for instance the cell’s membranes (wall) is incredibly complex. Lipids and proteins interact to assemble bilayers which function much like cross beams which are called phospholipids shaped like a balloon with two strings attached, and are assembled in a tail-to-tail configuration. The balloon ends forms the inner and
outer surfaces. The phospholipids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid are combination of cholesterol, oils, fats, etc.
The protein molecules on the other hand bind to the inner and outer surfaces and function as receptors that provide the cell capability to communicate with its external environment; they do this by catalyzing chemical reactions at both the inner and outer surfaces. Another function is to transport material across the cell’s membrane and also forms pores and channels though it.
So what needs to be in place from the start is a protocell that has complete bilayer formation securely and properly tail-to-tail assembled that encompass the total cell - forming a ‘sandwich bag’ structure that provides a sealed environment. Well of course it would have to surround the cell’s machinery already inside which would have to be likewise fully functional as is the membrane. It’s all or nothing - the nucleus and other parts and the dna scripting for the likes of metabolic and replication must be there inside the membrane in place, in real time, in perfect working order. The border can’t be just 99% ‘evolved’ or the cell doesn’t survive.
If the membrane developed through natural processes, evolutionary models must account for its occurrence early the origin of life pathway. This hasn’t been done, forget about ‘perfectly’; in fact not even close. This is not simple to more complex, this is fully complex.

Ok so you have opted for "irreducible complexity" a long refuted attempt to shoe horn in a god where one is required.

I am not an expert in this field so wont even try to rebut this specific example, but I know that no attempt to show that this is a thing has succeeded.

(October 4, 2013 at 9:20 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Also how would such a creature reproduce? So it does not even lead anywhere.

There are non-living molecules that 'reproduce'. Reproduction is simple.

---

(October 4, 2013 at 9:20 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: RNA provides no survival advantages

Evolution does not rely on advantages. It is disadvantages that steers it.

(November 16, 2014 at 3:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:49 am)snowtracks Wrote: Commencing at the cell level - for instance the cell’s membranes (wall) is incredibly complex. Lipids and proteins interact to assemble bilayers which function much like cross beams which are called phospholipids shaped like a balloon with two strings attached, and are assembled in a tail-to-tail configuration. The balloon ends forms the inner and
outer surfaces. The phospholipids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phospholipid are combination of cholesterol, oils, fats, etc.
The protein molecules on the other hand bind to the inner and outer surfaces and function as receptors that provide the cell capability to communicate with its external environment; they do this by catalyzing chemical reactions at both the inner and outer surfaces. Another function is to transport material across the cell’s membrane and also forms pores and channels though it.
So what needs to be in place from the start is a protocell that has complete bilayer formation securely and properly tail-to-tail assembled that encompass the total cell - forming a ‘sandwich bag’ structure that provides a sealed environment. Well of course it would have to surround the cell’s machinery already inside which would have to be likewise fully functional as is the membrane. It’s all or nothing - the nucleus and other parts and the dna scripting for the likes of metabolic and replication must be there inside the membrane in place, in real time, in perfect working order. The border can’t be just 99% ‘evolved’ or the cell doesn’t survive.
If the membrane developed through natural processes, evolutionary models must account for its occurrence early the origin of life pathway. This hasn’t been done, forget about ‘perfectly’; in fact not even close. This is not simple to more complex, this is fully complex.

Ok so you have opted for "irreducible complexity" a long refuted attempt to shoe horn in a god where one is required.

I am not an expert in this field so wont even try to rebut this specific example, but I know that no attempt to show that this is a thing has succeeded.

In my layperson opinion, there's no functional difference between "A God" and an effect observed and ascribed particular characteristics.

The fundamental disconnect seems to be that those systems which function survive, and those that don't die out.

A creationist anthropomorphizes this process into an existing being more intelligent than they can fathom; whose eternal nature implies the same output effect as a blind process rewriting code until something sticks, so to speak.

There's no functional difference, so I don't see where the disagreement lies.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:21 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: In my layperson opinion, there's no functional difference between "A God" and an effect observed and ascribed particular characteristics.

The fundamental disconnect seems to be that those systems which function survive, and those that don't die out.

A creationist anthropomorphizes this process into an existing being more intelligent than they can fathom; whose eternal nature implies the same output effect as a blind process rewriting code until something sticks, so to speak.

There's no functional difference, so I don't see where the disagreement lies.

They want to support their delusions so misrepresent the evidence.

(November 17, 2014 at 6:21 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 3:57 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Ok so you have opted for "irreducible complexity" a long refuted attempt to shoe horn in a god where one is required.

I am not an expert in this field so wont even try to rebut this specific example, but I know that no attempt to show that this is a thing has succeeded.

In my layperson opinion, there's no functional difference between "A God" and an effect observed and ascribed particular characteristics.

The fundamental disconnect seems to be that those systems which function survive, and those that don't die out.

A creationist anthropomorphizes this process into an existing being more intelligent than they can fathom; whose eternal nature implies the same output effect as a blind process rewriting code until something sticks, so to speak.

There's no functional difference, so I don't see where the disagreement lies.

scenarios: 1. cell has a complete membrane with nothing in it. 2. all the cell parts with no membrane. Parts as: nucleus, protoplasm (dna material), vacuoles, etc. 3. Fully functional cell - naturalism posit that this happened but is unexplained.
#2 - cell wouldn’t last a nanosecond without a membrane. Maybe the nucleus directed it’s construction faster then that to save the day.

(November 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(November 17, 2014 at 6:21 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: In my layperson opinion, there's no functional difference between "A God" and an effect observed and ascribed particular characteristics.

The fundamental disconnect seems to be that those systems which function survive, and those that don't die out.

A creationist anthropomorphizes this process into an existing being more intelligent than they can fathom; whose eternal nature implies the same output effect as a blind process rewriting code until something sticks, so to speak.

There's no functional difference, so I don't see where the disagreement lies.

scenarios: 1. cell has a complete membrane with nothing in it. 2. all the cell parts with no membrane. Parts as: nucleus, protoplasm (dna material), vacuoles, etc. 3. Fully functional cell - naturalism posit that this happened but is unexplained.
#2 - cell wouldn’t last a nanosecond without a membrane. Maybe the nucleus directed it’s construction faster then that to save the day.

let me prove human evolution with skin color. Climate <- Climate plays a role a very large role on how a persons skin color is going to be back thousands to millions of years ago with ancient man. Darker skin hey you lived in a area with lots of sun and terrible heat. Lighter skin color you live in a area with 4 seasons. moderately or somewhat dark colored you have terrible summers and another or so few seasons.