Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Ira_Louvin
2.The supposed simplicity of the cell 2. Cells are complex now, that doesn't meand the first cells had to be complex. There's this theory you may have heard of called "evolution".

It's difficult to argue with a proposition that has no chance of being proved or disproved.

But again Darwin was wrong in his assumptions about cells. With his limited knowledge he made best guess which didn't hold up under scientific scrutiny. Why you're defending it is a mystery.

From the article about cells:

• Information processing, storage and retrieval.
• Artificial languages and their decoding systems.
• Error detection, correction and proofreading devices for quality control.
• Digital data-embedding technology.
• Transportation and distribution systems.
• Automated parcel addressing (similar to zip codes and UPS labels).
• Assembly processes employing pre-fabrication and modular construction.
• Self-reproducing robotic manufacturing plants.

It's like me looking at the outside of a car and not understanding how its technology works. I might envision that it's powered by a squirrel on a treadmill chasing nuts. The guess itself isn't bad considering my limited knowledge of modern technology, but it's naive and simplistic to think that it has any basis in reality.

49 posted on 11/08/2009 7:20:02 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: DouglasKC

Just because it is complex does not prove that God did it.

There is no creditable, testable evidence to support your assertion.


53 posted on 11/08/2009 8:38:09 AM PST by Ira_Louvin (Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: DouglasKC
"With his limited knowledge he made best guess which didn't hold up under scientific scrutiny."

The exact same argument can be made about those who based their knowledge of Creation upon the literal translations of Scripture as it has survived today. Were science to use as its foundation proclamation instead of the peer reviewed work of the many generations of highly intelligent men and women you wouldn't be banging out misconceptions on an affordable machine with more computing power and communications abilities that existed collectively in the world in Darwin's day.

If, in the 16th century, one had written of medical technology that permits a physician to peer into the body without cutting, or to replace a human heart with another John Calvin would himself had lit the pyre. If one had written about magic boxes that would cook a meal in seconds or machines that could fly faster than sound, or in mysterious machines that could instantly talk to each other and share live pictures and sounds between any two places on the planet their fate would have been sealed by those who could find no basis for such technology in Scripture.

To be wrong in science is as advancing to the overall progress of man is nearly as significant as to be right because it adds to the overall knowledge base. To propose ideas not yet provable, for future generations of of scientists to validate or refute, is the work of a real scientist.

55 posted on 11/08/2009 8:55:04 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson