Originally posted by RJHinds Overwhelming Evidence For Creation And Intelligent Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcPNUfYils
Right at the beginning they say that in Darwin's time the cell was like a black box, that they didn't know what was inside the cell at that time. Wrong. That's how easy it is for a knowledgable person to see through these creationist claims. They're flat out lies, and any fool can just go dig up the literature of the time and find that they knew a lot about the inside of a cell. I mean, come on! How could Leeuwenhoek describe the cell nucleous and vacuoles over a hundred years before Darwin, if they knew nothing about what's inside the cell? For crying out loud! Is it too much to ask that creationists at least try to do some elementary research before making claims like that?
Originally posted by C Hess Right at the beginning they say that in Darwin's time the cell was like a black box, that they didn't know what was inside the cell at that time. Wrong. That's how easy it is for a knowledgable person to see through these creationist claims. They're flat out lies, and any fool can just go dig up the literature of the time and find that they knew a lot about t ...[text shortened]... ementary research before making claims like that?
What a bunch of absolute idiots you are. 😠
I say the idiots are those that actually believe the stupid theory of evolution.
Originally posted by RJHinds I say the idiots are those that actually believe the stupid theory of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk
You still linking to liars and frauds even after they've been exposed as liars and frauds is not idiotic at all, is it? Your god must be so happy with you (assuming he actually exists - which of course he doesn't).
Originally posted by C Hess You still linking to liars and frauds even after they've been exposed as liars and frauds is not idiotic at all, is it? Your god must be so happy with you (assuming he actually exists - which of course he doesn't).
Originally posted by RJHinds Is that good or bad news? 😏
Why don't you answer the charge that in Darwin's day they thought of the cell as a black box instead of deliberately trying to sidetrack. I believe the word for that is obfuscation. Deliberate Obfuscation.
Originally posted by sonhouse Why don't you answer the charge that in Darwin's day they thought of the cell as a black box instead of deliberately trying to sidetrack. I believe the word for that is obfuscation. Deliberate Obfuscation.
I have heard that Darwin thought of the cell as something that was very simple. The term "Darwin's Black Box" was popularized by the Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe. I believe an earlier term was a "jello like substance" or a "glob of goop" that was assuming something not very complex.
Originally posted by RJHinds I have heard that Darwin thought of the cell as something that was very simple. The term "Darwin's Black Box" was popularized by the Intelligent Design advocate Michael Behe. I believe an earlier term was a "jello like substance" or a "glob of goop" that was assuming something not very complex.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNXLT8h_fIo
He was as aware as anyone else in that era what was in cells. He had microscopes as good as any on the planet. The fact he did not know the full complexity of the cells, well neither did anyone else till more powerful scopes were invented, like the conformal scope or the electron microscope and the like. That's like Aristotle being condemned because he didn't know about CMOS.
Originally posted by RJHinds ...Darwin thought of the cell as something that was very simple.
On the contrary. He knew about and understood that the inside of a cell was not simple protoplasm, but full of intricate parts that worked together. Though he didn't know much about the details (in his lifetime the nucleous, vacuoles, cytosol and cell membrane had been identified), he knew enough to hypothesise that inheritable traits are passed on from parents to children through some mechanism inside the cell. He put forth his pangenesis hypothesis to try and explain this mechanism. This hypothesis turned out to be wrong*, but clearly he had an appreciation for just how complex the inside of the cell must be.
* unfortunately, he didn't know about Mendel's laws (few did in his time), so he proposed something a little more Lamarckian, where gemmules could be affected by the environment and then passed on to the offspring - hey, nobody's perfect - not even one of the greatest scientific minds this world has ever seen
RJ, if you ever repeat that really annoying expression, or any variation of it, ever again I will hunt you down and make you read the entire back catalogue of Reader's Digest.
Originally posted by sonhouse He was as aware as anyone else in that era what was in cells. He had microscopes as good as any on the planet. The fact he did not know the full complexity of the cells, well neither did anyone else till more powerful scopes were invented, like the conformal scope or the electron microscope and the like. That's like Aristotle being condemned because he didn't know about CMOS.
Perhaps we can agree that he was not really stupid, just ignorant. 😏
Another Notch Against Evolutionists
18 Mar '15 12:22
YouTube
Back to Top