Here is a great video presenting the complex order within a cell. Cells are irreducibly complex systems. Cells cannot be gradually built by chance, but the functions of the cell must be designed to simultaneously operate.
“The complex order of parts within the cell make up an amazing machine. The wonder of motor proteins like kinesins walking on cytoskeleton leaves evolutionists conjecturing how these proteins could happen by accident. Imagining the processes of the cell only reveals a complex order equal from within by its genetic code.”
See design for yourself:
The Breath of God 
Bruce,
Jesus used all the Scriptures, and believed all of them. This is clearly seen throughout the Gospels, but also when He said, “Have you not read” was referring to Genesis. Jesus was also there in the Creation (John 1:3). Despite this we agree on His belief, and I believe Him by His sublime words.
See, Biogenesis is referring to the beginning of life. Why do you only refer to only one of experiment by Pasteur and not to all the ones that you allies have done that confirm this Law. Yet, your organic soup has not proved anything. The changing of molecules and the simple production acids does not prove any Godless development of life but the design of Creation. Again, you bare the burden of proof for which a century of experiments have produced and will produce no life. Still, the “Hadean Era” is all conjecture and all the production of your desired conclusion. The continuing of Pasteur’s experiments in different environments has not produced anything close to RNA.
Yes. Creation affirms supernatural actions that is actions beyond natural science occurred by God creating the Universe. If God created, then this does not go against science, but creates it and acts upon it. Creation simply affirms super natural activity while evolution is supposed to ignore it. Creation does affirm the natural laws of science and still the Creator can act upon them supernaturally. I think it only natural that the Creator can act on His creation. The Law of Biogenesis on the other hand is a natural law showing that nature cannot produce life. This is not to say that a mind cannot engineer life.
“I feel sorry for you, and all who like you have committed yourselves to believing something that is obviously false, and thus have to indulge in weird intellectual contortions to cling on to your belief.” I’m sure you do. The Bible says that you would find this foolishness (1 Cor. 1:18ff), but as the result of your immorality (http://tinyurl.com/89ghcz). Which bares the question, if you have a conscience, where did it come from?
Lastly, the shape of the earth does not attack the very foundation of the Christian faith. Evolution does attack the authority of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the origin of sin, man being made in God’s image [resulting in the prejudices of evolution], and so on. Those “Christians” who really do believe in evolution accept some or all of these conclusions.
Why do you only read the one article on scientific foreknowledge and ignore all the rest? Like Jesus fulfilled predictions, Jesus’ empty tomb, Paul’s conversion, or one that you’d like “The Genesis of Everything in Existence” (http://tinyurl.com/7cz3rd).
Take care.
By the way, since you say that Christians who accept evolution are not Christians, do you also say that Christians who accept that the world is a sphere are also not Christians? The Bible says clearly that the world is flat, resting on pillars, that the sky is a solid dome, and that the stars are small enough that 1/3rd of them could (and will one day) physically fall to Earth. Do you believe those things? If you do not, you are, by your own definition, not a Christian.
“Jesus affirmed the Creation so I must too.” — Jesus was an ancient Jew, so I assume he would have believed a literal interpretation of the Creation myth given in Genesis, but the statement you interpret as affirmation (“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’) is too vague to count. It does not rule out interpretations that are compatible with evolution (i.e., that the “six days” are not literal days).
“but your theories stand in contrast to the scientific law of Biogenesis.” They do not. What Pasteur and others demonstrated is that if you keep, e.g., a sterile jar of water sealed for a number of years, no life will spontaneously emerge in that jar meanwhile. That’s very different from proving that if you stir a hot soup full of organic molecules for many millions of years, no life will eventually emerge.
The idea that God created all life on Earth in two days (days 5 and 6) in an environment similar to the modern world (e.g., atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen), breaches the law of biogenesis. The idea that cellular life emerged gradually over several hundred million years in an environment that was very different from the present one (e.g., atmosphere consisting of CO2, CO, N2, H2, and hydrogen chloride), does not.
“All I want is one instance just one observed and reproducible occurrence.” — no you don’t. You have committed yourself to belief that the Bible is literally true, and you are required by that commitment to dismiss any evidence that suggests it is not (and have done — I saw your entry on “Biblical foreknowledge”, with its desperate arguments).
In fact, the examples you ask for have already been provided, and you are ignoring them right now. The famous Miller-Urey experiment conducted in the early 1950s demonstrated that if you reproduce the environment of the Hadean era in the science lab, the chemical evolution of life starts very rapidly, such that, to quote Miller, “Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids” within about a week, never mind several hundred million years. Subsequent experiments have strongly confirmed this, and proved conclusively that in a suitable environment (similar to that of the Hadean-era Earth), amino acids, enzymes, nucleobases, etc., emerge spontaneously and abundantly.
So, there’s very good scientific support for abiogenesis, whereas creationism goes against *every* branch of science (cosmology, geology, biology, chemistry, basic laws of physics, the lot).
To a degree, I feel sorry for you, and all who like you have committed yourselves to believing something that is obviously false, and thus have to indulge in weird intellectual contortions to cling on to your belief.
Hey Bruce,
You concluded right about those “Christians” or deceived immature Christians. Jesus affirmed the Creation so I must too.
Your right this is not a complex argument. I’m not looking for one. I do see here that the co-option theory is your only option for the cell, which is nothing less than spontaneous generation by another label.
We could go into disproving various theories, but your theories stand in contrast to the scientific law of Biogenesis. Therefore, I conclude that it you must prove the the law of Biogenesis has ever failed. All I want is one instance just one observed and reproducible occurrence. I’m sure you dismiss the law of Biogenesis, but only for the sake of your previous theories. See before I go disproving your theories/conjectures, you’ll need to disprove the Law of Biogenesis. All theories stand on biases while Law stands on its own.
If I were just a theist who did not believe in the words of Jesus, then I would certainly consider the theories agreeing with Wallace.
Take care.
“Christians cannot accept evolution.” — most Christians in Europe accept evolution. Maybe you just claim that those people aren’t Christians. Well, by the same token, you ought to say that Christians cannot accept that the Earth is a sphere, since the Bible says the Earth is flat, and supported on pillars. Perhaps anyone who does not accept that doctrine is also not a Christian.
“The complexity of the cell pushes evolutionists to either be wrong” — it does no such thing. For one thing, complexity does not imply design. Compare the iron ball-bearing and the stalagmite. The simpler of the two is designed, rather than the more complex. Or compare the emerald-cut diamond against the far more complex shape of its uncut, undesigned counterpart.
You might want to claim that the cell couldn’t have evolved from simple organic molecules in a mere few hundred million years (i.e., you’d want to claim that abiogenesis couldn’t have happened). If you do wish to make that claim, you need a *much* more sophisticated argument than the one you are presenting. We know for a fact that molecules can self-replicate without cells, and there are detailed theories as to how simple organic molecules could become proteins or RNA strands in the Hadean Era, and eventually evolve into bacterial cells. To claim that the first cells must have been created by supernatural means, you need first of all to show that those theories fail. This you have not even begun yet to do.
Anyway, if you don’t accept abiogenesis, you don’t have to reject evolution. In fact, the coinventor with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, rejected abiogenesis, but of course did not reject the evolution of species.
Jeffrey,
The first video was Harvard’s video not mine. The 2nd was by Erik Couch. I’d like to know what is stupid about them if you could explain such.
Christians cannot accept evolution. It is a contradiction to their faith. Jesus taught Creation (Matt. 19:4-6). Theistic evolution cannot explain the supposed evolution of the individual conscience and morality just like atheistic evolution. Theistic evolutionists cannot explain at what point that God began holding ape/man accountable for sins, and which sins would be held accountable and when. When would God judge man and when would man need salvation? When would man have fallen by having the knowledge of good and evil?
The complexity of the cell pushes evolutionists to either be wrong or affirm “co-option” evolution, which is spontaneous generation. There comes in again the scientific law of Biogenesis standing strong against spontaneous generation now called evolution.
The simple truth for us common people is that evolution has not one single bit a proof for it just a bunch of “scientists” asserting conjectures to justify their own justification also called self-righteousness. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God” (John 3:19-21).
Scott, yes your videos are. You apparently have no idea what evolution is or how it operates. Besides the fact that Christians are allowed to accept evolution with no contradiction to their faith. The beginning of the world doesn’t matter as much as salvation.
If you’re trying to post videos by legitimate scientists who claim that cells are “irreducible,” then you won’t find any.
Evolution isn’t offered as an alternative belief; you either accept evolution (different than “believe in it”) or you’re wrong UNLESS you can provide a better scientific theory which fits all of the facts and is contradicted by none.
Jeffrey,
Stupid video filled with assertion rather than proof.
All I can see is Design. That is it.