Questions about the living cell

This is a science forum. Please provide scientific evidence that disease started with human "sin." Disease has been around since the beginning of life when the first parasite attacked the first host millions of years before humans existed.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Mr Jack please carry on with your exceptionally well argued position addressing Calypsis4's inane side discussion, if you so desire. Your efforts are appreciated. However, I did find something you should be aware of: evidently the Wikipedia paraphrasing is in the book.

quote:

---

Page 108
The typical molecule is made up of an A chain (400 kDa), a Bl and a B2 chain (each approximately 220 kDa) which associate to form a cross-shaped structure. ...

---

But also, Calypsis4's argument, as given above my/this post, carries nothing of a persuasive nature. Nothing useful whatsoever, except that it is a wonderful example of pareidolia.

quote:

---

Pareidolia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pareidolia (pronounced /prɪˈdoʊliə/) is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- ("beside", "with", or "alongside"meaning, in this context, something faulty or wrong (as in paraphasia, disordered speech)) and eidolon ("image"; the diminutive of eidos ("image", "form", "shape")). Pareidolia is a type of apophenia.

---

Edited by CosmicChimp, : added definition

Yes, I'm aware the book describes the protein as being cross-shaped (and, elsewhere, as cruciform). It does not, however, contain the passage Calypsis4 wishes to present as a quote from the book. That quote comes, instead, from wikipedia.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

These looks like crosses. but this does not look like a swastica? Are you dillusional?

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Wait right there, I thought you said the cross is the symbol of God? God's signature so to speak.
Now you claim it's a picture of God's hatred for human sin?

---

"Few are those who see with their own eyes and feel with their own hearts." -Albert Einstein"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief."
~ Gerry Spence

As an aside, I would argue that parasitically-driven disease is more than an inconvenient fact of nature but a critical component of ecosystems. At risk of hyperbole, I like to use the phrase 'parasites run the world'. For example, it is becoming more and more apparent in oceanic systems that phytoplankton blooms worldwide are probably more limited by viral load than by nutrient depletion (gross over-simplification, it is more than simple mortality but also the viral component of the microbial loop which is at play here). These annual (or more often) die-offs are driving forces in oceanic nutrient content in surface waters (i.e. they provide the raw materials for the next bloom) and sinking nutrients drive deep sea ecosystems, which area-wise is most of our planet.Likewise I believe that in terrestrial systems the role of parasites (including or especially that gray area between parasitism and commensalism) is under appreciated. Parasites have been shown to actually increase the total biomass in certain closed systems, and I suspect this process is probably occurring on a larger scale but is harder to resolve.I look at this as something of a monkey wrench in the creationist adage about disease being a negative consequence of the Fall.

---

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

..and when, might I ask, did only living beings constitute "all things?"As I write this reply, I am playing with a 2myo stone I recieved from a friend from the gem and mineral show in Arizona. The stone is by no means (that I have ever heard) held together by crosses of any sort and yet is very noticably a "thing."My 2myo stone trumps your 2kyo book.

The topic concerns your questions about the living cell, not religion. Please keep your focus on the topic, and as this is a science thread, please keep religious arguments out of the discussion.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Patterns in nature:They're all over the place!

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My favorite pareidolia religious picture.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I'll say it plainly, Mr. Administrator: you're nuts.'Laminin' is a scientific subject. It is part of the subject that I STARTED in the topic post. You seem to be oblivious to the title of this website: CREATION vs evolution! How can we debate the subject if we cannot DISCUSS the existence or non-existence of the very entity in question; the question that is posed by the very name of this website?You and your fellow bigoted administrators are out of your minds! You invite people such as me to join this board and participate and then you rebuke those who carry the CREATIONISM position to its logical conclusion: A CREATOR! I can't help it if you don't like talking about 'religion'. Go start another website and change the cotton picking name!Do as you will with me, sir. You have ruined my attitude towards this board.

Perhaps you should have brought empirical evidence, instead of just your belief and zealotry.You would have fared better.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It isn't that you can't claim a creator, but you must show the evidence of such, this is a science forum. Origin of Life > Questions about the living cell. If you can show evidence of a creator, fine, so show it.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

The problem, Caly, is that you want to say, "God did it," but you can't say it. Everything you have shown, all your pictures and all you've said are always underlined with that explanation. And that's probably what frustrates you.You are trying to argue the naturalistic explanations behind science, and that's great, but you are arguing with incomplete facts. You pick a snippet here and there in an effort to back up your ideas without looking at the alternative explanations for what you have presented. You started with the conclusion, "God did it," and worked backwards to reach the premise, which is also "God did it." And that's frustrating, I know. After all, in your mind the evidence matches perfectly.But that's the point we're trying to make. You began with the conclusion without first proving the premise. We can't accept the premise unless you can prove it, and you can't prove it, at least, not to us. To yourself you may have all sorts of evidence that you consider definitive, but to us, it is all subjective.That's why you feel frustrated and you have every right to be. But you have to understand, Caly, that we want to understand your position, but we want to understand it through science. That's why we can't accept your conclusion that God did it - it's because science says that there is a natural explanation for everything that happens in the world around us. We may not know what it is, but there is one. What you need to do is show how science is wrong without resorting to your conclusion and that requires a lot more research and looking at sites that, frankly, you may not be comfortable looking at.If you can do explain why the laminin can have no natural explanation for being the way it is, if you can disprove any natural explanation of science as wrong and a supernaturalistic explanation as right, then we can have a proper discussion.Otherwise, showing pictures and saying "God did it, can't you see?" does nothing to advance the debate.

Hi Calypsis4, why don't we start with this: I don't see any reason to do anything with you. You continue to familiarize yourself with this board and the way it works, and as far as I'm concerned you're still a member in good standing.The science forums here are for discussion and debate of Creationism's claim to just as much be legitimate science as evolution and all other science. The Origin of Life forum in which this thread resides is a science forum. Appropriate arguments in the science forums would be the same ones used to argue that creationism should be part of public school science curriculums. Here's a link to the list of science forums.EvC Forum also has a set of religious forums where the possibility of God as the answer is very much on-topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director