How do creationists explain mitochondria?

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by john_bmth

 

if you look at the OP, it sure seems like a poke from Science at creationism. Just say'n.

It sure looks like OP is trying to defend against claims Creationism made at Science. Science is simply trying to explain the error Creationism pulled out from its rear to discredit science.

In reality, none of it matters.

Science would be wasting it's time on this particular issue as it wasn't meant to be figured out by man. Man was never meant to have this kind of knowledge.

Just as the Bible does not provide enough information to satisfy scientists, scientists don't have enough information to satisfy anyone other than other scientists, and even that's debatable.

Neither side will ever have proof. That's why it's called faith. God didn't give either side all of the answers for a reason. He demanded that we have faith. Your choice. Either way, the answers aren't coming in anyone's human lifetime. Sorry to disappoint you.

ON THE INHERENT INCOMPLETENESS OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES

www.activitas.org...

reply to post by Deetermined

Amount of natural phenomenon the Bible has helped to explain: 0
Amount of natural phenomenon science has helped to explain: countless and counting

Don't even try and put them on even footing with your wishy-washy "we'll never know/God will reveal" rhetoric.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Yes, that's the Scientific view. Science will always win according to Science.
I said that.

On the other side of the fence, the people that believe some sort of super being created everything and has some sort of super duper set of super duper laws is going to say all sorts of fantastic crazy things, and they'll back up all this crazy fantastic stuff with SCRIPTURE, and according to the faith based people, because the SCRIPTURE, or WORD OF GAWD says such and such, they will always be correct and win every single argument because scripture (gawd) says such and such is true and no matter what science says, science is the work of the devil, or something like that.

I'm pretty sure that's what i said the first time, but, now I'm saying it again.

Science, in the eyes of science will always win.

Religion, in the eyes of religion, will always win.

They both live by entirely different rules, mutually exclusive from each other.

My personal opinion is that if religion were to sudden disappear overnight, humanity might actually get somewhere without destroying itself because then we could get some actual real thinking done.

The words in BOLD couldnt be more true...
BUT, you dont need to REMOVE religion or make it dissapear.
We all just need to accept the fact that, with religion as a mean
of power, we will allways LOOSE..
Let religion or FAITH be what it is, a PERSONAL way of making
the person stronger, secure and give hope. If a person does not have
faith in his/hers OWN abilitys or cant feel safe without or even cant
have hope for tomorrow then not even science will be good enough...

But i strongly object to Religion beeing a way to control, form and
move ppl in THIER direction...Thats NOT what the "scriptures"
says....

Originally posted by Deetermined
Either way, the answers aren't coming in anyone's human lifetime.

The answer to e.g. "Do all animals, plants, and fungi share a common ancestor?" is right here, in this thread, supported by objective undeniable evidence, and it's "Yes, all animals, plants, and fungi descent from a common ancestor". It's a scientific fact. So far, no creationist has even attempted to refute the evidence put forth in the frame-work of this thread.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Amount of natural phenomenon the Bible has helped to explain: 0
Amount of natural phenomenon science has helped to explain: countless and counting

Don't even try and put them on even footing with your wishy-washy "we'll never know/God will reveal" rhetoric.

I'm not dissing science completely. It has made tremendous progress in medicine, but it will never explain where we came from and where we will end up.

However, whenever you put any kind of creation into the hands of man, they corrupt it.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

aaemonline.org...

WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF CLONING?

learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Deetermined
Either way, the answers aren't coming in anyone's human lifetime.

The answer to e.g. "Do all animals, plants, and fungi share a common ancestor?" is right here, in this thread, supported by objective undeniable evidence, and it's "Yes, all animals, plants, and fungi descent from a common ancestor". It's a scientific fact. So far, no creationist has even attempted to refute the evidence put forth in the frame-work of this thread.

edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

By the way, what break through does this bit of knowledge have to gain?

reply to post by Deetermined


Science is a process of learning, it does not say it knows it all like some sacred scripture does. Science tries to explain the phenomenon(including origins of life) as we uncover more and more evidence.

At least is better than referring back to an old book, which most likely modified 100s of time by man and was written because an imaginary man said so.

Science = Theory > Hypothesis > Evidence > Test > Results > Conclusion.

Religion = Conclusion.

Originally posted by Deetermined


I'm not dissing science completely. It has made tremendous progress in medicine, but it will never explain where we came from and where we will end up.

You know this how?

Originally posted by Deetermined

However, whenever you put any kind of creation into the hands of man, they corrupt it.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS

I take it you've never eaten a Banana then?

You consider the feeding of hundreds of millions of people a corruption?

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Deetermined
Either way, the answers aren't coming in anyone's human lifetime.

The answer to e.g. "Do all animals, plants, and fungi share a common ancestor?" is right here, in this thread, supported by objective undeniable evidence, and it's "Yes, all animals, plants, and fungi descent from a common ancestor". It's a scientific fact. So far, no creationist has even attempted to refute the evidence put forth in the frame-work of this thread.

edit on 12-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

By the way, what break through does this bit of knowledge have to gain?

Aside from explaining our origins to a large degree?

Originally posted by Prezbo369

You know this how?

Really? Do I need to pull out a thesis from a scientist to prove that man doesn't have unlimited knowledge?

I take it you've never eaten a Banana then?

You consider the feeding of hundreds of millions of people a corruption?

Not if we're providing people with all of the information associated with the health risks of eating GMO foods and letting them know which are GMO and which are not.

Don't Eat it: Linked to Cancer and Gets into Your Blood

articles.mercola.com...

By corrupt, I mean changing anything that's natural into something that's unnatural. This is a bad road to go down.

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Aside from explaining our origins to a large degree?

The origin of what? Science might be able to determine that everything is related, but it still won't be able to determine where it came from.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Aside from explaining our origins to a large degree?

The origin of what? Science might be able to determine that everything is related, but it still won't be able to determine where it came from.

In this case it was able determine that we come from the same lineage than e.g. plants and fungi, i.e. when you follow the ancestors of each contemporary animal, plant, and fungi, back in time, you will eventually reach an organism that is the common ancestor of them all. Where that came from, is in part addressed by the models present in the first picture of this thread. Where those came from is addressed by yet other theories. As we move further, we lose statistical confidence, but up until the point of the common ancestor of animals, plants, and fungi, there is no question. It's a scientific fact, and it has numerous implications, e.g. we really are just one species among others.

Creationists explain mitochondria in one of two ways: Either the devil put them there to confuse mankind (like dino bones), or God did it, no need for any further investigation.

reply to post by rhinoceros

How do creationists explain mitochondria?

This escapes so many...

1. As a creationist, beliefs are based on faith so, explanation is not required.

2. As an evolutionist, everything must be explained... which very often, it is not.

Outcome: A silly war between those who believe in God and those who believe in nothing.

Originally posted by Deetermined

Really? Do I need to pull out a thesis from a scientist to prove that man doesn't have unlimited knowledge?

what? no.....I want to know how you know that...

I'm not dissing science completely. It has made tremendous progress in medicine, but it will NEVER explain where we came from and where we will end up.

Because it sounded asthough you think you have unlimited knowledge.....

Originally posted by redoubt

This escapes so many...

1. As a creationist, beliefs are based on faith so, explanation is not required.

2. As an evolutionist, everything must be explained... which very often, it is not.

Outcome: A silly war between those who believe in God and those who believe in nothing.

A more accurate representation is:

1. As a creationist, beliefs are based on no good reason

2. As an evolutionist, knowledge is based on evidence, observation and experimentation.

Originally posted by Druscilla

My personal opinion is that if religion were to sudden disappear overnight, humanity might actually get somewhere without destroying itself because then we could get some actual real thinking done.

According to this scientist:

However, our ego’s presents itself in different forms and continue to hinder the development of science as a whole.

Apparently, enough so that someone felt the need to develop this website:

SURVIVAL BLOG FOR SCIENTISTS

www.sciencesurvivalblog.com...

OP "Although there's no scientific consensus about the exact way how mitochondria became a part of us, it's a fact that they were once, about 1.5 billion years ago, free-living alphaproteobacteria."

It is not a fact that mitochondria were once free-living 'alphaproteobacteria'. Many microbiologists think it is likely that mitochondria were once free-living prokaryotes that somehow took up residence in larger cells, but this is a THEORY called "The endosymbiotic THEORY". It remains the theory to explain the fact that these mitochondria have different DNA than the 'host'.

Just as evolution is sold as FACT when it's just a THEORY, you are selling Endosymbiosis as FACT when it's just a THEORY. I have absolutely no problem with science trying to explain the physical processes of life, but when it's proponents state something is FACT, people who don't know any better take it as proof positive. This is exactly why a part of science mimics FAITH because they wholeheartedly believe in a scientific theory as if it were fact.

Its just a theory!

Science?

pffft