Questions about the living cell

We never left it. You just don't like to talk about Laminin. Why is that, Mr. skeptic? I sure can. I can give you a lot more than that. But if I did as you suggested would it make any difference to those who are emotionally committed to a lie?Nope.

The truth is left to be found in that case.What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy, where you attempt to show that nature cannot create such and such protein, and blah blah, so therefore it had to have supernatural origins. BUT you have yet to show the supernatural origins.I have no problem with you proving that nature can't create what you claim in your OP. But I will not accept your unproven alternative (poof) as the default answer. Sure looked like it to me. Your whole argument reeks of personal incredulity. You haven't actually shown why nature could NOT do what you say it can't. You just don't see how, which means very little in proving that it can't. And what did you find? My guess is not very much, because this sort of thing is still in it's infancy. Science will always need to answer questions about any particular theory. Throwing out a scientific theory because new questions are flowing in and have yet to be fully answered, is anti-science, unintelligent and wholly ignorant. just my opinion, you don't have to like it. What reasoning? Letting science answer science questions? Really? More dishonesty to bamboozle the masses?For the same reason astrology is not scientific. I read your other thread on this and it made me chuckle. Although this is off topic I'll reply anyway.Living fossils are a prediction of the ToE. The prediction being, we should see little change in the fossil ancestors of living species that have gone through very little or no change in environment. And guess what? WE DO. Just another confirmed prediction of the ToE.Now. If you want this argument to work, go and find a living species with ancestors that lived in a vastly different environment, and show little to no change. Run along.

You mean your argument about laminin looking like a cross was a serious argument?
Ok. So did laminin look like something else before the supposed crucifixion of this guy who supposedly existed that you call jesus? Did it change then or did your god create it knowing sometime he would have his son executed on the cross? If it always looked like this, was this pre or post that Adam guy and his woman?In all seriousness. It takes a vivid imagination to see a cross in the laminin. As others have pointed out there are structures that look like any manner of shapes. Pentagrams and swastikas to point out two. Why are they not relevant? So we can just throw that argument out. I'll tell you what, any argument you wont back up with at least a sliver of evidence I will just ignore. Lets see that leaves. No, no, no,. Hmm nothing with any evidence yet.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not for us. That's because I cannot create anything. No one can. It comes down to final options. Since the natural world cannot create itself, it had to have a source outside of the phsyical to create it.The living fossils reveal the stasis that God placed in all organisms and fit under the category of the 'law of kind' as mentioned in Genesis. Only to those who have never experienced the supernatural.

I would say, "Gosh, you're catching on slowly," but alas, you're only nit picking.Have fun posting the other forum members.

quote:

---

The truth is left to be found in that case.

​

Not for us.

---

I'm not following. You said that if both options were wrong, what is left. So you would purposely chose a wrong answer over searching for the real one? Weird. Wait. What? I thought we were talking about proteins and the like. You know, biology.But the bottom line is, if you can't show your alternative to be possible, it isn't an alternative.... You just aren't getting it. So you claim to have experienced the supernatural. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, and except that the supernatural really exists (or whatever). BUT have you experienced a cell being supernaturally created??? No, you haven't, and you need to, to use the reasoning above. Just because (for arguments sake) the supernatural realm exists, does not mean it created the first so-and-so protein. You need to show that it did, which is EXACTLY what you are asking the opposition to do, when they say it was done naturally. Please be fair and apply your very own standards to your position. Or stop the special pleading altogether.

I will take this as your admission that you have no responses to the points made. If you are not willing to debate and support the points YOU presented in the op, why do you bother posting? I and numerous others have repeatedly asked you to stay on topic and to provide some sort of evidence.Again, one more time I will ask and then I guess if you don't answer I will have may answer that you have no evidence. All you have is preaching and proselytizing.Why is laminin so special because it might be construed as resembling a cross, but other things like potassium channels in nerve cells that look like swastikas have no relevance? Or how about DNA itself. SourceDNA should be more highly regarded than laminin shouldn't it?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, it is YOU that is not getting it. Not even close.I would love to discuss the supernatural but I have been warned twice to stay on topic and I am tying.Living fossils destroy evolution: utterly. My opponents are not being honest about this very clear-cut issue. That is because they are all emotionally committed to a fabrication called 'evolution.'

Could you at least keep your arguments straight? On this thread we are supposed to be talking about cells, not living fossils. Please address that topic here and living fossils on the other thread.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You are not being honest with me nor with yourself.Observe this: This is the classic painting of Moses & the brazen serpent.The symbols of paganism are a counterfeit of the true faith and its symbols. Jesus Christ is the co-Creator with the Father and this world is His. His symbol is on every single cell in the entire world just as the divine scriptures teach it.Now IF you can offer a scripture from the pagan holy books that teach that Zeus's symbol is on each cell then do so.

Nice post! The whole laminin thing is bizarre, I have seen several of Louie Giglio's talks about it, great showmanship and little else. Besides the molecules that look like other symbols one has to ask how many ways can a few linear objects be put together?One thing that I think is even funnier is that the typical cross used to symbolize Christianity is tradition, not Biblical. We do not know what the shape of the crucifixion instrument was that Jesus was tacked to (assuming it happened). The word used throughout the gospels is 'stauros' which refers to a simple pole that was a very common crucifixion device during that time. Arguments have been made that stauros could also refer to a cross, which may be true but hardly conclusive. I know off topic, but laminin related (could be an interesting topic?).

---

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"

I hope Mr. Jack will give us some feedback on this, cause that video sure is intriguing.it almost seems as I could try it in my kitchen lol (with the right ingridients)

When was that picture painted?
Which do you think inspired the other? The Rod of Hermes, which has been a symbol for thousands of years? Or your picture, which was painted much more recently and is the artists interpretation of a vaguely described object in scripture?Calypsis, it seems to me that your main argument in this thread is the following:"Since nobody knows how life originated, it must have been created."Now, nobody knows how life originated (except you), we'll admit that. You have a point, good job. What most of your co-debators in this forum are trying to ask you is: "Why does this constitute evidence of a creation?"Just because science can't answer your question at present, what makes you think it never will? And even more importantly: What gives your explanation precedence when their is a gap in scientific knowledge? Why not go by any other religious doctrine of creation? Why go by any at all?You are the one making a claim here Calypsis. Nobody else is. The best we can offer you are suggestions as to how life might have originated. You claim certainty. Therefore, you must provide evidence for your claim. Until you can provide evidence for a supernatural creation, no one here will take you seriously.

Calypsis,Yet another pointless post that fails to address what you are replying to.By your own standard evolution is demonstrated. You can stop with the strawman argument re: living fossils now.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Wow, you really think that laminins are little crosses put there by God to demonstrate his wonder, don't you? I'm... baffled at how someone can buy into something so obviously absurd. I'd hoped pointing out both how tenuous that link is, and how easily one could project a similarity onto a molecule, you'd see that. Oh well.Okay. Let's accept laminins look just like crosses, and only crosses and no molecule in the body could possibly be taken as looking like any other symbol.So why did God choose to display his wonder in a molecule critical to the formation and spread of cancer¹?¹ Marinkovich, P. (2007) Laminin 332 in squamous-cell carcinoma Nature Reviews Cancer vol. 7 no. 5, p.370-380 (abstract)