From post #154. But you’ve said as much on a number of occasions
“ If you have a problem with that, then your question is better directed to the intelligent designer and why the intelligent designer created such a strong, deceptive illusion to give the false appearance that they came from bacteria if they didn't.”
@Kjvav By the way, did you know that on the night of Christ's crucifixion the moon turned to blood? I mean actual, literal blood? (Acts 2:16-20). There are of course false "Christians" who think that's figurative language for a lunar eclipse, but clearly they're not following the clear truth of Scripture. ;-)
From post #154. But you’ve said as much on a number of occasions
“ If you have a problem with that, then your question is better directed to the intelligent designer and why the intelligent designer created such a strong, deceptive illusion to give the false appearance that they came from bacteria if they didn't.”
Please try to be a good listener. Let's go step by step:
When we study mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells we see that they are comparable in size to bacteria and that they divide like bacteria do and contain their own DNA separate from the cell nucleus and that this DNA contains bacterial DNA sequences and that this DNA is replicated by replication machinery only found in bacteria and that the gene sequences in this DNA and even the genetic code has unique features only found in bacteria, and all this information is so specific that we can even identify the specific type of bacteria that has these same characteristics. These are simple observational facts.
*Now my first question to you, kjvav, is simple and straightforward: Even if *you* think otherwise, is it illogical for *someone else* to think that chloroplasts and mitochondria came from bacteria on the basis of these observational facts? And, if so, then please identify where the specific error in logic is.
@Kjvav By the way, did you know that on the night of Christ's crucifixion the moon turned to blood? I mean actual, literal blood? (Acts 2:16-20). There are of course false "Christians" who think that's figurative language for a lunar eclipse, but clearly they're not following the clear truth of Scripture. ;-)
@Kjvav who responds with "mock on"
It's not mockery, it's an illustration of YECs inconsistency. YECs like to proudly portray themselves as the one true defenders and guardians of God's clear (i.e., literal) truth as shown in Scripture, but they don't even consistently practice what they preach. You may think this facetious but it's not. This is the type of "exegesis" that YECs do. So let's apply it here and do what YECs do: "It's not figurative. God's teaching is clear and straightforward. The verse clearly says that the moon WILL be turned into BLOOD, and the Greek word for blood is the same word used for real, actual, literal blood everywhere else in the New Testament. By trying to argue otherwise and interpret this non-literally, you are changing the clear truth of Scripture!"
If you reject the truth, that God created the heavens and the earth, and that he did it in six days, after rejecting the actual truth how can you think I would call your conclusions that deny the truth logical?
All systems of belief have one or a few foundational truths. For instance, Calvinism has at its base irresistible grace. If it were true, unconditional election would have to follow. Total depravity would be a necessary conclusion and perseverance of the saints would also have to follow. Catholicism has its adherence to church tradition as superior to Scripture which clearly is a blank check as far as their varied and ever changing doctrines are concerned, and who can argue with anything they dream up now that papal infallibility has been thrown into the mix.
I start out with an infallible Scripture and you do not. How can I ever say your contrary conclusions are logical? They are logical in the framework you’ve chosen. The Catholics and Calvinists are logical within their own theological walls and so are you.
We’ve returned to my belabored point, which is that the heart of this matter is spiritual, not strictly a matter of logic. Logic is a secondary issue for all parties.
Actually logic is not a secondary issue for the Bible believer, because the truth is written on every man’s heart at their beginning, and those who reject it must secondarily go form their own thought structure, or join a group that has.
@Kjvav As predicted you didn't give a straight answer to a simple, straightforward question but dodge and dance around it with all sorts of mental gymnastics and evasive "responses."
You also accuse me of making assumptions and "jumping to conclusions" while committing a whopper of your own by taking the simple inference that "mitochondria and chloroplasts look like they came from bacteria" as somehow constituting a rejection of God and the Bible!!! Seriously??? Talk about assumptions and leaps in logic.
The simple, straightforward, logical conclusion based on observational facts that "mitochondria and chloroplasts look like they came from bacteria" makes no claims as to "how" that happened, nor is it a rejection of God or the Bible. Such a conclusion makes no metaphysical claims at all!
The Bible tells us NOTHING about bacteria and chloroplasts and mitochondria one way or the other. Genesis says God made plants. It doesn't say how. Who's to say that during the six day creation when making plant cells God couldn't have inserted a specific type of bacteria into the plant cells and then modified them to make chloroplasts and mitochondria? Were you there? How do you know God didn't do it this way?
*The Bible makes no claims about this one way or another. So, let's try this again:
When we study mitochondria and chloroplasts in plant and animal cells we see that they are comparable in size to bacteria and that they divide like bacteria do and contain their own DNA separate from the cell nucleus and that this DNA contains bacterial DNA sequences and that this DNA is replicated by replication machinery only found in bacteria and that the gene sequences in this DNA and even the genetic code has unique features only found in bacteria, and all this information is so specific that we can even identify the specific type of bacteria that has these same characteristics. These are simple observational facts.
*So I ask you again: Based on these observational facts, is it illogical for *someone else* to think that the chloroplasts and mitochondria found in plant and animal cells came from bacteria? And, if so, then please identify where the specific error in logic is.
I must have missed it then. Please humor me: Based on the observational facts, is it illogical for someone to think that chloroplasts and mitochondria came from bacteria? Yes or No?
crickets
I’m just cutting and pasting what I’ve already said.
I start out with an infallible Scripture and you do not. How can I ever say your contrary conclusions are logical? They are logical in the framework you’ve chosen. The Catholics and Calvinists are logical within their own theological walls and so are you.
You still can't answer with a direct yes or no response. Tell me this then: Is there anything in the Bible that says during the six day creation when plant cells were being made that God couldn't have inserted bacteria into the plant cells and then modified them to make chloroplasts and mitochondria? Is there anything in the Bible that says God couldn't have done that? Yes or No?
When you see someone isn’t willing to step in the little pile of intellectual dog crap you’ve laid before them you should either just make your point or move on. You think God is tricking people because they mistake common design for common ancestry. I don’t believe it is deceptive, especially in light of his declarations in Scripture. You’ve said your point and I’ve said mine. Holding up your “Yes or No” hoop and demanding I jump through it will not further this discussion. The conclusions you refer to may be logically based on the foundational belief of atheism, but since I don’t subscribe to that belief I will forever consider them illogical no matter how many times you complain that I didn’t sum it up with one word. Since you obviously have a multi-step plan to show me the light and I refuse to squish my foot into pile number one, let’s just side step it and have you hurry on to step two.
Unbelievable! If the truth is on your side then you have nothing to fear. Is there anything in the Bible that says during the six day creation when plant cells were being made that God couldn't have inserted bacteria into the plant cells and then modified them to make chloroplasts and mitochondria? Is there anything in the Bible that says God couldn't have done that? Yes or No? There's no trick. It's just a simple question and quite frankly it seems like a ridiculously easy one to answer. My answer to the question is, no. I see nothing in the Bible that says God couldn't have done things this way. Do you disagree?
The point is quite simple: If you agree that there's nothing in the Bible that says God couldn't have done things this way, then saying "mitochondria and chloroplasts look like they came from bacteria" poses no problem or conflict with Scripture.
Ok, for the sake of this discussion, if it looks the way, your conclusion is God tricked them? Is that it?
Very, very well said Truthmuse. Not to keep harping on a point, but to me your comments point back to the fact that the only reason to reject the very existence of a Creator is because you want to, not because evidence compels you to.
I'm pointing to one thing a reason for all that that is. There isn't an equivalent scientific explanation from the material point of view exclusively. If there is only the material world and that is that, but where did the material come from? It did not create itself so it has to be something that transcends it, as well as space, time, and energy. Do you have something that you can offer? All of this of course on top of the specified functional complexity we see in the universe, life from our own beings down to just a cell.
@TruthMuse So, it's true. You *are* incapable of making basic distinctions like the difference between "what" and "how." I've taken the time to watch your videos and read your articles in their entirety like the one for this OP, which I spoke favorably of for its use of the peer-review process. You, however, have obviously not studied any of the information I've provided you. Had you done so, you would have obtained answers for all the questions you keep yammering on about, and you would also stop putting words into my mouth. You really don't read closely what people have to say:
(1) With respect to origins: I've repeatedly pointed out the problems with abiogenesis and the origin of sophisticated genetic mechanisms that enable organisms to self-modify their genomes and evolve. So why are saying I "proclaim" these mechanisms "can start without help" when I've said no such thing, but have repeatedly stated that science has no clue? Even just last week I said YECs/ID-ers have a valid point here. Geesh, apparently you're also incapable of realizing when people agree with you on a point, too! Wow, that's saying something. I gotta tell you, you make it really difficult to agree with you, and now at this point to even want to agree with you, so perhaps you should rethink your approach.
*Today, we have mountains of evidence for both the "what" and "how" of evolution, but you still need to distinguish between the two, because they address fundamentally different questions.
(2) With respect to the "how," I'm not sure why I bother repeating myself, because again, you obviously don't listen or read the material I give you. Had you done so but still maintained your position, then you would have at least updated your arguments and become more nuanced. Instead, your repetitive rants merely demonstrate your continued ignorance of modern biology: Was there enough time to make these genetic alterations? Yes, more than enough time, actually. Can random, "unguided" natural processes cause evolution? Evolutionary mechanisms are not as "random" or "unguided" as you think--you continue to demonstrate your ignorance by such questions. Can evolutionary mechanisms alter genetic information without compromising "vital function"? Yes, they can and they do. Can mutations create new, functional information? Yes, they can and they do. Even ID-ers recognize this like in the creation article pyritedragon posted. Can evolutionary mechanisms alter genetic information to create new genes and new proteins with new functions, and major changes in morphology and body plans? Yes, absolutely, they can and they do. Do we have evidence for macroevolution (speciation) and that evolutionary mechanisms can create new species? Absolutely! Without question! We have mountains of evidence, including real-time observations. Even ID-ers like Behe and Meyer recognize this.
*We are NOT ignorant of the "how," but that is still a separate question from the "what."
(3) With respect to the "what," you can't just simply write-off all the staggering similarities that exist. And not just similarities, but evidence from genomics that not only allows us to compare genetic similarities, but allows us to trace changes in genomes and construct family-tree relationships. The SAME TYPE OF REASONING is used with the New Testament to identify different textual traditions, construct family-tree relationships between manuscripts, and track changes in manuscripts over time in order to establish the most accurate, original text of the New Testament. If you question the soundness of such reasoning, then you also undermine the entire basis for establishing confidence in the New Testament text. But even so, questioning is not enough: As I said, YOU must show how billions of independent, separate creation events better explains the observational evidence than common ancestry, and quite simply you have failed to do so.
*Listen TruthMuse, it's a free country, so you have the right to believe anyway you want. If you want to reject all the evidence for evolution, then good for you. If you want to think that it's all the result an intelligent designer who created everything in six days, then that's your perogative.
*What you cannot do, however, is fault someone else for thinking otherwise. You are welcome to believe that an intelligent designer separately created chloroplasts and mitochondria in plant and animal cells to give the illusion that they came from bacteria when they didn't. But you can't fault the rest of us for concluding on the basis of extensive evidence that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from bacteria (and, yes, we also have extensive evidence with regard to the "how" this occurred). If you have a problem with that, then your question is better directed to the intelligent designer and why the intelligent designer created such a strong, deceptive illusion to give the false appearance that they came from bacteria if they didn't.
The thing is the "how" if that isn't viable, your what no matter what you think about it is worthless. You can claim anything about the past, that is a "what" by definition, but not necessarily a reflection of reality! An opinion can be declared, just not proven, because we are talking about the past. The how can be tested in the now, what you think you are looking at cannot be.
Still waiting for that biblical reference where we're told the "truth" about bacteria and chloroplasts and mitochondria (And I never said God tricked us. You and TM really need to read people's comments more carefully).