A human cell is more sophisticated than any man made invention. Does this not allude to a creator?

A human cell is more sophisticated than any man made invention. Does this not allude to a creator?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/QOCaacO8wus
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It alludes to your lack of imagination.

I'd say no, however I am religious. There's this idea in maths called "monsters" or something along those lines that explains how creatures can become so complex.

It alludes to the awesome machinery and creativity of nature and the hundreds of millions of years its had to perfect it, versus a couple thousand years of human technology.

After much consideration I have had an epiphany on the subject of evolution deniers, and since im in a cheerful mood I will elucidate the matter for you all.

Some people just do not possess the intellectual capacity to comprehend evolution over geologic timescales. The intellectual capacity for abstract thought is not inherently uniformly gifted to all humans. It has arisen in humans as an advantageous capacity that facilitates increased reproductive likelihood and survival generally. This capacity for extreme abstractive comprehension, when absent or deficient, leads to an insistence on the readily and directly perceivable being the likeliest resolution to any query.

to paraphrase in terms more readily comprehensible to the likely reader. Some people are just too stupid to be able to understand abstractions beyond certain complexity thresholds.

No a creator of the universe and reality would be so far beyond our comprehension it doesn't matter

Oh he created a cell? How about the literal incomprehensible vastness of the cosmoss? How about the ability for microscopic particles to bond at an atomic level to form useful substances with countless properties and functions

Maybe someone can explain something to me. In the Kurzgesagt video he said that cells and mitochondria are actually 100% dead, even though they continue to function and reproduce themselves. How is it possible that all cells are dead? Is it because cells are more akin to robots than life?

I dunno man, a modern computer CPU is pretty complicated.

Secondly, how do you explain mitochondria? Technically speaking they're parasites, they're not human, they're closer to a bacteria. In fact, they kind of prove that life started as a single cell.

If you learned about the way chemicals interact with each other, and you factor in evolution and the way it works, you would find the methods the cell use could not have happened any other way. Technically speaking, the cell is a liquid held together with a cytoskeleton and different charges.

>This thing is beyond human comprehension. I think I comprehend how it was made.
This is what evolution deniers actually believe.

Here's the video for anyone curious youtu.be/QOCaacO8wus

>wow this looks like this couldn't have been made
>that must mean it has to have been made

>I LITERALLY am allergic to reading the blind watchmaker
educate yourselves twats

Mitochondria are not alive, they're dead organisms (apparently)

>Does this not allude to a creator?

By that logic, the creator you're alluding to would have to be more complex than the creation. Who created the creator?

A requires B
C > A
therefore B requires D
?!?!?!?! they should teach logic in elementary school.

>cells cannot feel or experience anything
Feel, sure if you're being pedantic, but it certainly experiences things...

>they're dead organisms (apparently)

Doesn't "organism" mean living thing though?

Not really a bad video, but it really just highlights the limitations of the words "living" and "dead". It's just a language problem. Biology is what it is.

They're the descendants of organisms that have since gone extinct. They are considered organelles.

Nope, they have their own unique DNA and they undergo reproduction during mitosis.

The problems is the definition of life does not include this type of parasite. In fact, parasite is not completely accurate, its symbiotic. It's weird.

Mitochondria do not fulfill the criteria for a living being, only some of it. Mostly because it is a key part of our cellular metabolism.

sage

>evolve from single cell organism over billions of years
>gradually become more complicated
>duh must be one of four thousand religions
>yup it's jesus
face it, everything that exists is a futile accident.

awesome video

also nice murican id

Look at the big brain on this guy.

Yeah we know. Now, fuck off summercuck.

it just alludes to nature being more sophisticated than any enginerd.

You're too stupid to understand that, mathematically, there hasn't been enough time in 5 billion years for the process to have occurred spontaneously.

There must have been a catalyst.

why would it? unless you are foolish enough to believe that man is so great that anything greater than man must be Space Jesus

>nature
>"sophictication"

How is anthropomorphizing "nature" any different from ascribing creation to a creator? Nature is not sophisticated; it is mindless. Its statistically impossible several times over for a single, self-replicating cell to have spontaneously fallen into place

Let's say that there was a catalyst. It is still a massive and retarded leap to say that there was a catalyst, therefore god. Fuck you.

they are as alive as viruses are. there is a debate as to whether or not they are considered life forms.

why?!

If i put the correct ingredients in a baking tin, mix them up and place it in the correct conditions i can make bread. It doesn't require my personal intervention or will to make it.

The correct ingredients were present on the earth to make life, it took a while for the chemical processes to work and the correct conditions, but it happened.

It was far from spontaneous.

>It is still a massive and retarded leap to say that there was a catalyst, therefore god

It takes a special kind of stupid to deny what has been self-evident to mankind since the beginning of recorded history. The entire premise (that "something" spontaneously appeared from nothing) is no more scientific than ascribing creation to a creator

It's called iterative improvement over four billion years.

>there hasn't been enough time in 5 billion years for the process to have occurred spontaneously.
It wasn't spontaneous though.
It was gradual.

>my model that I developed using theory and not evidence says this shouldn't happen so it can't happen
Theoretical Biologist isn't a profession.

>If i put the correct ingredients in a baking tin, mix them up and place it in the correct conditions i can make bread

Yea, OP's point is that a cell is insanely more complicated than that. If a single part of the cellular machinery is malfunctional, the cell dies.

It'd be more akin to putting all the raw materials for an automobile (ie iron ore, coal, etc) into a box and shaking it around for 5 billion years. Guess what the chances are that you'll not only arrive at a functioning automobile, but that the automobile will drive out of the box and self-replicate

My penis is more sophisticated than your brain

Does that not allude to your low intelligence?

> oops the universe created itself
> oops it got arranged in spirals
> oops there are inteligent systems making themselves better
> oops conscience appeared
> oops...

>If a single part of the cellular machinery is malfunctional, the cell dies.
That's not even close to true. Life gets completely fucking mangled by the environment during the course of living and it still manages to reproduce. There is a lot of redundancy on the genetic level.

Did you think that nobody thought about this already? Duplicate genes, gene evolution, it's an entirely field in itself. Think before you speak.

The Creator is not part of the created universe and therefore not logically bound by the laws that bind the universe, believing that God requires a Creator is akin to believing that God cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

Now I'm not saying that God does not have a Creator as well, maybe God does, but from our perspective within the universe we reside in it is fundamentally unknowable, as we lack the tools or the ability to understand concepts that are not the purview of our universe.

It's like programs in Tron trying to find God by studying the computer systems programmed by the User, and no I'm not arguing in support of the "Simulated Universe" concept. I'm just saying.

over-complicating shit is a sign of pseudointellectualism

>just cause I don't have the capacity to understand or make sense of something, there must be a creator

Oh golly gee, it just might. Although I'd say that such a creator would have to be pretty darn complex as well, friendo.

Cells have self-preservation mechanisms. There is protection against error. You still have failed to demonstrate how inanimate, non-living matter spontaneously assembled itself into such complex self-replicating life forms

I don't get how it's so hard to imagine that the universe is inteligent. No it's not a fucking bearded old douchebag, it's an infinite mind that you can't comprehend with your finite one. It's like asking a cell from your buddy to understand what are you on a larger scale.

Learn science and evolution, it's actually fucking interesting as fuck and it will help stop you looking like the dumbass you're appearing to be right now.

no

Abiogenesis and evolution are two related but different topics. That you conflate them shows that you don't understand. I make no claims whatsoever about abiogenesis.

>>The Creator is not part of the created universe and therefore not logically bound by the laws that bind the universe

How convenient.

> believing that God requires a Creator is akin to believing that God cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

I understand your point, but I doubt the OP, if his post isn't just bait, thinks or understands it this way.

"Science" falsely so called. The conclusion was derived before the experiment; the fool has said in his heart "There is no God." So now he'll jump through trillions of hoops to explain himself

>Does this not allude to a creator?
No, if anything it alludes to man's arrogance.

Believing that self-replicative process can't be responsible for the the world as we understand it is about as childish and self-centered as believing the world didn't exist before you were born. Really, that's what it is; the idea that the universe before mankind hardly or barely existed because clearly EVERYTHING revolves around you. Because otherwise, how else would you be able to believe that God created you in his own image since you're the only thing that has ever really mattered?

Either way, the point is that yes, a divine creator could play a role in it. But the ONLY thing that the sophistication of cells genuinely alludes to is that living process are far more complex and ill-understood than people give credit to. Not that there is an invisible sky daddy who loves you very very much.

>Abiogenesis and evolution are two related but different topics

The latter precedes from the former; UNLESS you accept that evolution is possible as a system created by God

>all of "Science" goes directly against the core concept of Science
What.

Humans are made of 75% water. Does that not allude to the fact that you are a fucking sped?

>A human cell is more sophisticated than any man made invention.
I am pretty sure the totality of human civilization, brought about by empirical thought, is more complex than a single molecular machine.

Also complexity emerges from simple rules, people who are good at maths (not me) can explain that.

>I can perform an experiment, therefore God can't exist

Wew. The "big bang" and assorted bullcrap isn't necessary.

>precedes
No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis = creating "life" from "nonliving" matter. Evolution = change of "life" over time. Evolution has to come second.

Did you just make a typo, or like... do you not understand english?

>the fool has said in his heart "There is no God."
"God" may or may not exist.

However, that is irrelevant to whether or not God loves, you, cares about you, or is even Christian.

what's so intelligent tho? that the universe arranges itself in spirals?

Take a look at conways game of life. Given simple rules to begin with, complexity arises over time.

Yes,DNA is the coding good made for our flesh vehicles

No, not to say O don't believe in one, but the real question is how did the light come to be if all there was, was darkness? There was always light and always will be. Life always was. That is proof of a creator/

Yup. Design infers a designer.

>I am pretty sure the totality of human civilization, brought about by empirical thought, is more complex than a single molecular machine.
>t. never studied a cell

If you obviously exclude the cells that constitute humanity, and just think of "humans" as individual units, then a cell is more complicated than the sum of our planetary civilizations

i don't think you understand how quickly things happen on the microscopic scale
you probably think it's slow as fuck like every single video you've ever seen explaining cellular processes
the fact is that proteins, organelles, etc move around inside the cell at 250 MPH
they bump into each other at random orientations billions of times per second

Note that theologian Charles Darwin referred to the cell as "simple", and like "a bag of salt".

That's who these evolutionists are believing.

>heh, good thing you made a typo or I'd have to refute your point

Listen, you spaz, no one in this thread is arguing whether "God" as a concept does or doesn't exist.

But Genesis and the Christian God in general are absolutely fucking retarded and completely fall apart under any level of logic or scrutiny.

>Does this not allude to a creator?
Must be quite a complex & sophisticated this creator you speak of, he can't have come into existence by himself can he ? wouldn't such an entity require some kind of creator................

>a cell is more complicated than the sum of our planetary civilizations
fuck no

What experiment? What experiment could possible prove or disprove the existence of god? There isn't one. That fact doesn't mean that all other experiments are useless, it means that the concept of god is untestable.

I don't think you know what chance 1 in 10^128 is.

Because that's what you're betting on, for the cell to be a random act of evolution.

>the fact is that proteins, organelles, etc move around inside the cell at 250 MPH
>inside the cell

Again, you're assuming the cell already exists. When an inorganic chemist accidentally produces life in his lab then you'll have a point. Hell, let anyone do it intentionally

They're real, and you're the fool, boy.

and who created the creator?
the only plausible answer is that the universe always existed and will exist forever

>"God doesn't exist."

Nigger, this is a vital concept. He's asking if you made a typo because the word you misspelled takes on a drastically different concept or meaning if used incorrectly and changes the argument entirely.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are not the same thing.

No, an eternal spirit being would not require a creator.

Thanks for playing though!

Please, let me know how you would test whether or not god affected abiogenesis.

You're literally Brian Griffin.

no it means we should stop trying to be so smart 'controlling' and 'desigining' things and set up our systems to allow evolution to do the heavy living

>liquid filled sack
>planet in the middle
>weird coral bullshit around it
>floating cucumbers with spaghetti inside


m8 I could make you one of these in an hour

Experiment:

1. Kill yourself.
2. See God for yourself.

We've created many things, but no human has EVER successfully created life in a laboratory.

We are our mitochondria.

>for the cell to be a random act of evolution.
>random
Natural selection is not random.

Allusion isn't proof

God is an uncreated being, and the universe had a beginning.

Catch up with both religion and science on your own time, please.

How did you get that number? I'm better it was through theory and not through evidence.

>You're literally Brian Griffin.
kek

what are you talking about enginerd? have you ever studied biology?

so·phis·ti·cat·ed
adjective
(of a machine, system, or technique) developed to a high degree of complexity.

Abiogenesis = fantasy

Take a stat class and calculate the various probabilities for yourself.

it would suggest a creator only if we ASSUMED that the origin of replicating systems that could catalyze their own replication and simultaneously stored all non-thermodynamically relevant data within their peptide chain for replication were complex cellular systems with surface proteins and organelles and other cellular machinery.

We already know that certain organic macromolecules like viruses can perform these functions in the correct environments though

the origin of life was not precisely life but likely a polypeptide chain

Why did you think you would be able to participate in this conservation with no argument or evidence? Lemme guess, jokes on me, you're not really retarded, just pretending!

It seemed to me if I was an immortal divine being that wanted to create a universe and had the ability to do so then I would probably do in a way that's so simple I don't really have to do much of anything.

For example, a single seed, that then explodes into everything on its own. A big bang of sorts.

>Evolution and Abiogenesis are not the same thing.

Listen. OP's thread started with a CELL and asked if it alluded to a CREATOR.

This isn't about whether your grandmother was chimp, its about a single fucking cell

Why not? you assume exploding nothing caused you, what can't you assume?

>If I put a cow in a lettuce, wheat, and tomato field that also is prone to getting struck by lightning then I'll get a hamburger. It doesn't require my personal intervention or will to make it.

I know how a fucking cell works, it has lipids on the outside, it has self-replicating shit inside, it turns high-energy molecules into molecular motion. It is less complex than a brain. There are magnitudes of complexity, and a cell is just the beginning. Again, all of that start with physics laws and hydrogen, and a lot of time.

>but no human has EVER successfully created life in a laboratory.
Yet.

50 years ago, you could have easily claimed that no human has deliberately manipulated a genome either. I have no doubt which side of the fence you'd be on if we were having this argument then if the question was about genetic manipulation.