The PuritanBoard  

Go Back   The PuritanBoard > Theology > Natural Revelation and God's Creation

Natural Revelation and God's Creation Discussions regarding science and creation
The heavens declare the glory of God (Ps. 19:1)

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God.

» Online Users: 40
3 members and 37 guests
Christoffer, tellville, Theoretical
Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 09:27 AM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,317
Thanks: 257
Thanked 433 Times in 288 Posts
Darwin's miniatures

Just because something is small, does that mean it's less complicated or less difficult for Darwinism to explain? Is it any easier to explain the existence of a flea by Darwinism than an elephant, because the flea is much smaller and a "simpler" form of life?

To take this beyond biology, Is it any easier to explain one atom, or more fundamental particle coming out of nothing, or a whole Universe?

This is a case of Darwinian wishful thinking and a rather simplistic fallacy, which people like Michael Behe and others are challenging.

Here are some pictures from the Nikon Small World Competition, some of which are of biological entitites:-

Nikon Small World competition: photographs through the microscope - Telegraph
__________________
Richard
communicant member, FCoS
Perth, Scotland UK

His Name forever shall endure;
last like the sun it shall:
Men shall be blessed in Him,
and blessed all nations shall Him call (Ps. 72:17)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 09:37 AM
NateLanning's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 788
Thanks: 360
Thanked 130 Times in 81 Posts
Does Darwinism attempt to explain the existence of atoms?
__________________
Nate
Protestant Reformed Churches in America
Ann Arbor, MI
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 09:44 AM
Bern's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 180
Thanks: 29
Thanked 55 Times in 31 Posts


I live about a mile from Downe House in England, where Darwin lived and worked. The local reformed baptist church use the large visitor presence to capitalise on witnessing opportunities, handing out tracts outside the gate debunking evolution! Great opportunity.

Sorry.. go back to topic now
__________________
Bern
Evangelical
Kent UK
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bern For This Useful Post:
Berean (10-20-2009)
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 10:08 AM
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cantonment, FL
Posts: 26
Thanks: 2
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Some of those things that are small in size are not so in complexity!
__________________
Kevin
Pastor
Primitive Baptist
Pensacola, FL
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 11:16 AM
Richard Tallach's Avatar
Puritanboard Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Perth, Scotland UK
Posts: 1,317
Thanks: 257
Thanked 433 Times in 288 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
Does Darwinism attempt to explain the existence of atoms?
No. But broader atheistic evolutionism does. Everything "evolved" from the "simpler" to the more "complex", presumably because the "simpler" is assumed to be easy or relatively easy to explain without God. The universe emerged from a quantum fluctuation or a speck. Biological life evolved from a primordial soup that assembled itself into tiny "simple" life.

What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?

There's a world of false presuppositions and misconceptions behind how evolutionists use words, even "simple" ones.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 02:46 PM
NateLanning's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 788
Thanks: 360
Thanked 130 Times in 81 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to NateLanning For This Useful Post:
Richard Tallach (10-20-2009)
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-20-2009, 04:25 PM
Augusta's Avatar
Puritanboard Doctor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Washington
Posts: 6,895
Thanks: 2,578
Thanked 998 Times in 630 Posts
There are a series of movies called Incredible Creatures That Defy Evolution. They're really great, very interesting. You might check them out if you have never seen them.
__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC

"I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 09:43 PM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
__________________
Andrew Cunningham
From:Reno, NV Currently: San Deigo, Camp pendleton
Attending:seeking a church in San Diego area
"by His scourging we are healed" Isaiah 53:5
"Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin" Psalm 51:2
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 09:52 PM
TimV's Avatar
Puritanboard Botanist
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,469
Thanks: 1,887
Thanked 2,409 Times in 1,140 Posts
Quote:
Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
Sure, I would. If I could actually see one. Which I can't. Since there aren't any.

Sorry, I hate it when enthusiastic types go all out against evolution, since 90% of the time they cause more harm than good, not understanding the subject matter. Like in 90% of creation institutes...and their works.....which often make Christians look dumb...

But on this subject, I felt I needed to call you on it ;-) There just aren't any examples of pre-Cambrian single celled organisms preserved. How could there be?
__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 09:58 PM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
Quote:
Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
Sure, I would. If I could actually see one. Which I can't. Since there aren't any.

Sorry, I hate it when enthusiastic types go all out against evolution, since 90% of the time they cause more harm than good, not understanding the subject matter. Like in 90% of creation institutes...and their works.....which often make Christians look dumb...

But on this subject, I felt I needed to call you on it ;-) There just aren't any examples of pre-Cambrian single celled organisms preserved. How could there be?
I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:03 PM
TimV's Avatar
Puritanboard Botanist
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,469
Thanks: 1,887
Thanked 2,409 Times in 1,140 Posts
Quote:
I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
Of course I'm not accusing you. But surely you see that there simply aren't any "pre-Cambrian" examples of single cells preserved. Believe me, I have more contempt for irresponsible creation science than the average atheistic scientist, but we're not going to see mitochondrial DNA extracted from "pre-Cambrian" cells, either from Tyrannosaurus or diatoms. It just ain't there.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:07 PM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
Quote:
I'm not saying that there is such thing a the Cambrian period in the first place, I'm merely using scientific definitions to ask a particular question. Evolutionists use the Cambrian period as a way of explaining the burst of complex organisms in the so called fossil record.
Of course I'm not accusing you. But surely you see that there simply aren't any "pre-Cambrian" examples of single cells preserved. Believe me, I have more contempt for irresponsible creation science than the average atheistic scientist, but we're not going to see mitochondrial DNA extracted from "pre-Cambrian" cells, either from Tyrannosaurus or diatoms. It just ain't there.
Well, maybe if you could explain yourself a bit more. I know that creationism and ID are two different things but organizations such as the Discovery Institute have broken alot of ground with their work.

By the way, the "T-Rex" wouldn't be considered pre-cambrian because of the complexity of it's body plan.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:09 PM
TimV's Avatar
Puritanboard Botanist
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oceano, CA, USA
Posts: 5,469
Thanks: 1,887
Thanked 2,409 Times in 1,140 Posts
OK, then I'll just ask you a straight question. Could you please point me to a place I can see a pre-Cambrian cell?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 11-10-2009, 10:14 PM
Andrew P.C.'s Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego, CA area
Posts: 524
Thanks: 28
Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimV View Post
OK, then I'll just ask you a straight question. Could you please point me to a place I can see a pre-Cambrian cell?
The cell itself? I would have no idea. But according to the evolutionist point of view the pre-cambrian organisms are single-celled... according to the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record shows that there are muti-celled organisms in the pre-cambrian period... which is why i would agree with the point that i think you are tying to make but im not sure thats why i've asked you to explain.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2009, 08:33 AM
NateLanning's Avatar
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 788
Thanks: 360
Thanked 130 Times in 81 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew P.C. View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NateLanning View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
What do atheistic Darwinists mean by "simple" or "simpler" life? Is a slug or a fly "simpler" life than a human being? Or are they "simpler" in some features and more complicated in other features?
The atheistic Darwinists that have instructed me over the past 10 years do mean "less complex" when they use the term "simple".

For, example, I study how cytokines bind their cognate receptors, resulting in the activation of intracellular enzymes (kinases), which further results in the activation of nuclear transcription factors, which finally results in transcriptional activation of a set of genes. The fruit fly is often used as model for what happens in "more complex" animals and humans because the fruit fly has a "simpler" set of the above starting material: fruit flies only have three cytokines, one receptor, one kinase and one transcription factor, whereas "higher order" animals and humans have a couple dozen or so cytokines and receptors, 4 kinases and 6 transcription factors. Most of these components can be mixed and matched in this type of cellular signaling, too. You can see that while there are only a few outcomes of this type of signaling in fruit flies, "higher order" organisms can have literally hundreds of outcomes from this type of signaling.

I'm convinced that "simple" is properly descriptive of fruit flies compared the "complexity" of humans in this particular example. However, I think I understand what you are trying to say in a broader context, and I tend to agree with you.
Wouldn't you consider a single-cell organism(pre-cambrian) simple or "less complex" and the multi-celled(Cambrian and post-cambrian) "complex"?
I won't get into the pre/post-Cambrian issue, but yes, I consider single-cell organisms less complex than multi-cell organisms.

Also, I'm not sure which institutes TimV is referring to, but I completely agree with him in that most of the good that creation-type institutes try to do just ends up making them/us look ignorant. Specifically, I haven't been particularly impressed with the material on the Discovery Institute's website. Maybe their books/DVDs are better, but the handful of pages that I've gone to really didn't help me answer the questions that I had.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-11-2009, 08:58 AM
ericfromcowtown's Avatar
Puritanboard Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 492
Thanks: 201
Thanked 139 Times in 84 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach View Post
Just because something is small, does that mean it's less complicated or less difficult for Darwinism to explain? Is it any easier to explain the existence of a flea by Darwinism than an elephant, because the flea is much smaller and a "simpler" form of life?

To take this beyond biology, Is it any easier to explain one atom, or more fundamental particle coming out of nothing, or a whole Universe?

This is a case of Darwinian wishful thinking and a rather simplistic fallacy, which people like Michael Behe and others are challenging.

Here are some pictures from the Nikon Small World Competition, some of which are of biological entitites:-

Nikon Small World competition: photographs through the microscope - Telegraph
No, evolutionary biologists would not say that "small" equals less complex. They might point towards their theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, for example, and claim that just because most birds are smaller than most dinosaurs, that this doesn't mean that they're less complex. By small, however, are you meaning single-cellular? As other posters have mentioned there is a lot of complexity even at the cellular level.

As to your question about whether it's easier to explain a cell arising out of nothing than a universe arising out of nothing, I would assume that the difficult part is the "out of nothing" not the size of the thing being created.
__________________
Eric
Woodgreen Presbyterian (PCA)
Calgary, Alberta CANADA
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2008 PuritanBoard.com
Hosted by WebsiteMaven - helping ministries with web hosting advice, reviews, and design.
67 Westminster Abbey © Confessional Presbyterian Presses - used with permission.
Add Our Custom Button to your Google Toolbar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69