Dismantling Evolution One Gear At A Time!
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- The human body is a marvel of complexity and the more we learn about it, the more miraculous our existence becomes! Can evolution explain the existence of the human body?
Host Lauren and Dr. Randy Guliuzza discuss this vital topic on episode 70 of The Creation Podcast!
Twenty Evolutionary Blunders:
store.icr.org/...
To become a member on CZcams: / @icrscience
To become a patron: / instituteforcreationre...
-
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on CZcams for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Amazon Music.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Follow us!
Facebook: / icrscience
Instagram: / icrscience
X (Twitter): / icrscience
LinkedIn: / institute-for-creation...
Pinterest: / icrscience
TikTok: / icrscience
Dr. Randy Guliuzza is one of my favorite people. Listen to an intelligent, well-conducted interview. To God be the glory!
(Psalms 139:14) "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Great video. Thank you
Psalm 137.9 "Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!".
@@rf7477That verse within its context is one of vengeance, which is directed towards repaying Babylon.
@@Hydroverse Vengeful men invent vengeful gods. The best weapon of vengeance and torment (and inducement) is the invisible one. Oddly, "christians" think that they should cherry pick from the bible, out of context, to 'prove' something.
@@rf7477 No sorry but Christians or followers of His Way know the instruction of the LORD found only in His Word. What you're doing is exactly what you accuse those who love the Lord of doing and that is called projection. If you knew His Word you would know that the Lord hates violence but with fallen men and a fallen world it is impossible to avoid. However Romans 8:28 is the answer and even the violence of fallen men can be used for good. Such as the story of Joseph in Gen chapters 37, 39-50.
You ignore the fact that the culture the Lord was speaking against sacrificed their own children to their supposed gods thru fire, they burnt them alive. So God is simply telling them He will take their children from them, an act of mercy you see as hateful. The LORD is infinite and perfect in all His attributes, so far beyond our understanding and beyond us it can not even be compared.
Instead of cherry picking as you accuse us of read the entire Bible not using some "gotcha site".
Ask for understanding and it will be given just as promised...
Thank you for taking this discussion well beyond science and giving glory to the One who created all of these wondrous things. 💖💖💖
The only to disprove science, or dismantling evolution one gera at a time, is with better science.
We are definitely fearfully and wonderfully made!!! Thank you ICR!!!
I give a thumbs up to ICR vids before I even watch them as they are always so informative.
How deluded
Oh boy! Almost an hour of irreducible complexity! My favorite!
I am at the point in life where I feel like my little machines could use some performance upgrades.
Lol, me too. Grace and health
Amen! :D
There's a bug with actual gears to synchronize their legs for leaping straight. Issus Coleopratus
"Asking the Lord a lot of questions." - You think? (pun intended)
"We must do anything, say anything, even lie to prevent a creator from gaining a foothold in the door of science." My favourite evolutionist quote.
Religion proves evolution. Religion reverts to type and is an evolutionary dead end. My favorite quote.
@@rf7477 ??? How does religion prove evolution??? Evolution is a religion in and of itself so we agree that religion is a dead end.
@@bewernia Evolution is entirely indifferent and godless, but so is the "christian" god. But all gods are man made and thus are the product of evolution. I think it was Voltaire who said "if god did not exist it would be necessary to invent him". Perfect self serving theology.
@@rf7477I’m confused now. The quote from Voltaire actually supports the position for God. Anyway… Evolution: DNA is a set of codes with some 6B base pairs (I think that’s close to correct). With any code there requires a language. How does a complex language develop out of an astronomically huge impossibility? Not to mention the fact that cells can repair flaws in DNA after cellular division. Can you look at something like the space shuttle and think, “wow. Just look at what we dug up in the dirt”. Something so complex as DNA, cell structure, the anomalous variety of elements found in Earth that are not present elsewhere. The fact that certain elements that are lethal are actually needed for survival (in the right amounts). The perfectly balanced universe. The sun being 400 times bigger than the moon and the moon being 400 times closer than the sun which makes total solar eclipses possible and not found anywhere else in our solar system. The laws of logic, mathematics, motion, thermal equilibrium etc etc etc. (BTW. Laws require a lawgiver) All just by sheer blind luck??? You have more faith than I do. Evidence is there throughout the universe that points to a designer.
Indeed religion has an evolutionary tree. Moses is a mutation resulting in monotheism. Christianity another mutation. Islam is a mutation, then Anglicans, Martin Luther, John Calvin etc. All except one don't enter heaven. Which is the real religion?
Very exciting podcast Lauren and Dr G. I so enjoy every new podcast and have watched all podcasts several times.
Love you ICR ❤️ thanks for this ministry
Randy's explanation of general revelation is the best exposition of Romans 1:18-23, especially verse 19, I have ever heard. Wow! What a God we serve!
Very exciting guys! This is going to be fun to watch ☺️🙏✝️ thank you
As any country boy knows, the chicken came first.
Without the chicken, the egg never hatches.
No, chicken are recent. Eggs already existed in (pre)cambrian in Sponges. In plants only in flowering plants. Fungi and Ferns don't make eggs
@@globalcoupledances Firstly, it was clearly a joke, in the video and in my comment.
Secondly, you're supposing a chicken egg existed before a chicken existed based on some other creature that also lays eggs. That's not a logical conclusion based on the fact that the point of this video is to debunk evolutionary theory.
@@kauboy9816 Not all eggs are chicken eggs
@@globalcoupledances For this video, it was a chicken joke...
But all eggs require parental care to secure and keep safe. The parent always comes first.
@@kauboy9816 I don't see the joke. Anyhow eggs came first, then chicken, then chicken egg.
You need animated graphics
Well done... It's amazing how all the pieces of the multitudes of machines in each of the trillions of cells in our bodies... the sensors, motors, etc.... all are operating with information to do each function in conjunction with every other function, all without a known central processor or logic control system, and even analyzing information and making corrections at the molecular level. That level of integrated control cannot happen by any naturalistic process. A single cell is beyond our comprehension of all the processes and mechanisms required to make it fully function, and then understand what makes it alive. Yes, our Lord does hold everything together and gives life, and we previously had no idea how much He holds together at one time... but the more we learn, the more amazing He is.
"cannot happen by any naturalistic process" It can only happen by natural selection. Too complex for design
@globalcoupledances I can't pass this up.
Are you telling all of us that random processes produced more complexity than design would produce?
Are you telling all of us that these complex processes down to the molecular level just happened and that natural selection just happened to get it right?
@rayspeakmon2954 - I didn't mention "random process" I wrote "natural selection". Natural selection is *not* random
@@globalcoupledances A random process had to start it first, genius. If it all happened piecemeal, then random processes had to create the organism and then "natural selection " said "ok... that one, not that one".
Your "faith" in a natural process always explains what happened, but it never explains WHY it happened!
Nice talking to you!
@@rayspeakmon2954 "ok... that one, not that one" That is the core of evolution. YEC believes only a selection of the bad cases. An unnatural selection. YEC don't believe in better survival
Design demands a designer
No evidence of design, let alone a designer.
@@StudentDad-mc3puyou fool, grow up
Amen!
@@StudentDad-mc3puwas your brain designed or not?
@@Loading....99.99 Not. Neither was yours.
The lowest number of cells in the human body I've heard of is 3 trillion. The upper limit I've heard is 30 trillion. One of the stranger ideas I've heard is that babies and children have a similar number of cells as adults but many of their cells are simply smaller.
Can ya'll post videos of these micro machines working in real-life cells? I have seen some animations of some cell activities, but haven't seen the videos of these activities in a real cell.
You can't see them, they are too small for optical microscopes, and the cell would have to be dead to view the machinery with a scanning electron microscope, that's why you only see the simulations. Indeed, simulations is major part of how these functionalities were discovered, from studying the folding of proteins.
@@letsgobrandon416 Well, the Dr. said "We can see them do these tasks. That is how we found out that these machines were operating in the cells." What I figured the issue would be with getting video of the actual activities in the cells is that they are operating at such a high rate of speed, it would just look like a blur to us at regular speed. Thus, they would have to be filmed at extremely high speeds and then slowed way down for the scientists to analyze. I don't see why the cells would have to be dead. They wouldn't die instantly once removed cells from a living person. Taking a tiny biopsy from a small portion of skin should give them a chance to view or film activity for at least an hour I would think.
@@alanbutler7712You can definitely see the effects of the machinery operating, but you are being too literal with "see" in this instance. You can watch some of the processes work with a microscope - such as mitosis, but the molecular machines activity is "watched" indirectly with various measurements. For instance, I can mix salt into water and watch it disappear, and I can taste the water and confirm it has dissolved salt in it, but I cannot actually see the sodium and chlorine ions floating around in the water. While a simple example, a lot of the cellular "watching" and "seeing" is much more sophisticated indirect measurements of cellular activity.
@@letsgobrandon416 BTW... thank you for taking the time to interact and respond to my inquiry. I appreciate it!
I did take it literal when they said they see or watch the machines perform their jobs. But, I think that is because of the specific words and descriptions that they are using. *And it may be that many of the machines can only be indirectly seen by their effects. But, that does not explain the example of the 'transporter' machine that is bipedal and "walks like a human, with two legs. It puts one foot in front of the other." This is not verbiage that anyone would use if it can't be literally seen in some way. Correct? If a "Creation" scientist used this verbiage and no one could see this machine in some way, (through still photos using an electron scanning microscope or some other microscope), they would be ridiculed and be untrustworthy even to Christians/creationists because they are lying... at least once we have the imaging to prove that there was no such machine within any cells that was bipedal! (I know that the secular scientific community doesn't take the Christian or Creation scientist seriously. But our scientists have continued to push back against the secular/athiest scientists and have been bringing the evidence that supports our worldview.)
I think the continual breakthroughs in science and technology has surprised many of us and science teachers, etc... who are not keeping up with new breakthroughs. For instance we can now take pictures of atoms! For those of us in our 40s, this wasn't something we were taught in school or university because it happened after we graduated.
It's amazing how complex life can be. Don't think there's much that can be done to make it more complex.
"Don't think there's much that can be done to make it more complex."
Put the IRS in charge of it. It will get a LOT more complex! 😁
"We don't want to get into science" . So how the heck are you going to disprove a scientific theory? The only way to disprove any science is with better science.
🔥🔥🔥
I am insatiably curious about EVERYTHING, so I will probably pester God with questions forever😊
26:27 really appreciate putting in prayer into the context of these amazing tiny elements of our body 🙏
I am just now so incredibly blessed. Thank you so much ICR and Dr Guliuzza
How could a non-living organism self-assemble? It would have to gather parts and pieces and organize itself before it could move or do anything at all. I am increasingly seeing the desperation evolutionists have to continue to believe and promote such a fantastical and ludicrous idea.
RNA can form a chain. Wikipedia "Nucleotide" shows the structure of the molecules
+ *Dean* Well the assembly of organisms simple and complex, living and non-living, is clearly possible. The process is often complicated and ill-understood, but it can definitely happen.
We can also see that the assembly of an organism doesn't have to be done by the organism itself. In fact, the first stage of assembly seems to require an outside influence, which makes sense. There's no reason to believe that outside influence has to be intelligent or even alive though.
Not only that. But it needs a rich supply of energy and to dispose waste. Then also, cell turn over. Cell shelf life.
@@demiligne3456
Where the OUTSIDE reason comes from? Who is he? Why it happened necessarily?
Random evaluation doesn’t make sense.
@@johnkim4548In other words, non dependent of the object by itself. Outside influences can be other molecules, changes in the environment, introduction of new material in the medium, and some other possibilities.
Use your imagination, so long as it doesn't involve fantasy. Non-sense? Well, electricity is the movement of really tiny particles going in and out of the orbit of an atom, and that movement generates magnetic forces and heat, this magnetic force can influence other materials to also move their particles and generate electricity without even touching each other. Does electricity makes sense or its an invention of the scientists to dismiss the existence of sparkling fairies?
Put priorities in order. Believe that electricity is powered by sparkling fairies.
Or you can admit that we are still too soon to really know how it came about, for now.
The day you actually bring some real evidence to the table is when you will begin to dismantle evolution.
GOD knows!
The Blue Unicorn knows!
There is a God!
There is our creator God.
Yes, evolution is God
@@globalcoupledances only in your mind 😅
@TJforChrist - better than only on paper
@@globalcoupledances I agree! You must feel sad that's all you have.
Yes, it would be necessary to pick at 'one gear at a time' because the evidence for evolution is a large nimber of mutually supporting pieces that work together to show that it happened.
Nope. It's a lot of conjecture and supposition, lightly sprinkled with a few facts here and there to give it apparent legitimacy. For example, your earlier comment about whales being descended from land mammals is not fact. It is the accepted mainstream view, but that does not make it fact. It's conjecture and supposition in drag. A lot of it is circular reasoning.
Think that's just a creationist dodge? Try a respected, atheistic evolutionists testimony, then:
'One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let's call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it . That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school".'
Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November 1981.
(Yes, I aware that Patterson objected to creationists quoting him. But he said what he said, and he was objectively correct.)
Fabulous overview. Thanks.
The amazing thing is that all these systems in the cell interact with each other efficiently, the inter-systemic interfaces are precise and efficient. Yet the 'machines' don't 'know' about each other, they are built by DNA which is a whole different set of chemicals. Over to you Mr Darwin, for another fantasy about origins!
BTW, the presenter's style needs to be lifted. There is no 'everyone' in broadcast media; the use of this plurality distances you from the audience, which is a random bunch of individuals alone with their computer. See the YT video: "TV Presenter Training, Top Tips and Hacks"
Darwin never heard of DNA. But the efficiency is the result of Darwin's natural selection, brilliant! Creationists only believe in unnatural selection
@globalcoupledances You wish efficiency can be acounted for- it sounds like you have no idea what you're writing. Beauty is one other aspect not possible in evolution- but here you're also generalising and explaining away efficiency? Can you even hear yourself ? You wish. A tuna fish being hydrodynamically perfect for high speeds underwater- has that got any relation to a peregrine Falcon being superbly crafted for high speed in air? You just think they are trial and effor? You simply haven't gotten around to learning how many components those creatures have that enable those efficiencies- which achieve the animals actual survival, not even it's reproduction. How about the dive depth of a whale- yet their nostrils perfectly seal at all depths- - let me guess, pure luck? It's even hydrodynamically shaped for preventing drag- but you think it evolved? Live birth by live birth- incremental change- from a rodent to a whale- and were those efficiencies present along the way? Your comments are comical Jake. Ps- Let some love in- look up.
@@UserRandJ According to your bogus theology, zoonotic disease is beautiful. So, your sinister god initially creates a benign plasmodium, say the malarial one, and then evicts it from the garden of eden on gods instruction to cause nasty disease in several species, not just man. Similarly, your nasty god commands woman to be fruitful and multiply and then inflicts her, and her unborn baby, with Listeria to remind her of her original sin. That is certainly very efficient. Tyrants often are. There is no love quite like "christian" hate.
@rf7477 - I see now that you are wrong. Evolution is by natural selection. YEC only accept that unnatural selection is possible
Good video. However it ends with a false doctrine. From the first chapter we learn that Jeremiah existed before he was born. It is reasonable to assume the same for every other mortal human on this earth.
i agree totally with her GOD is awe inspiring this stuff leaves me in awe of JESUS what an amazing GOD we serve
If a god such as many theists describe really exists, he will certainly be awe-inspiring.
Question: These "sea monsters" referred to in the Bible -- is this just referring to whales? I know they are mammals. Or is there evidence of any other sea creatures that are (or were, if they are now extinct) mammals?
"Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones..."
Lamentations 4:3a
Baby whales don't exactly suck like other mammals. The mother whale excretes the milk into the water. The baby drinks in the milk out of the water. Therefore, I suspect the scripture is referring to some other type of creature rather than to the whale.
Whales are descended from mamals that walked on land, and whales themselves have a pelvis, a bone that is used by land mamals for walking, and also vestigal bones in their flippers. They also have two nostrils like land animals, but only one blow hole - showing that the blow hole is a mutation of the two nostrils of other animals.
Whales have always been Whales @StudentDad-mc3pu
The hebrew word translated "sea monsters" in that version is "tannim", in the NIV for that passage (and others) it's translated "jackal" or "jackals" because the hebrew word for a jackal (as a masculine noun) is "tan", in other places it might be translated as a sea serpent, dragon, or just a serpent. A closely related word "tannin"-which is right before "tannim" in Lamentations 4:3-is also used in Isaiah 27:1 in reference to leviathan alongside "nahash" (the word used for the serpent in Genesis 3). The "tannim" might be a female jackal, some sort of aquatic mammal, a serpent, or some sort of aquatic/semi-aquatic reptile, honestly I'm not sure as I'm not by any means an expert in Biblical hebrew.
Great content. (please tell your editor to turn down the color saturation) thanks!
Not understanding something is not evidence for creation.
We need to realize that from God's perspective, our Universe is microscopic and he has Electron Microscopic Eyes.
Don’t remember much about “Fantastic Voyage” other than Raquel Welch was in it.
Jesus in modern English, Yeshuah in modern Hebrew, the only begotten son, the first born of all creation, the master worker alongside his father at the beginning of all creation, even though it was through him that all other things came into existence, he always humbly gave all the glory to his father in heaven: Jehovah in modern English, or Yahweh in modern Hebrew. You guys need to step up and do the same thing. The Jehovah's Witnesses are right about this. Jesus ardently stated on many occasions that the Father is the greatest of all.
Are you guys deleting comments now? Wow.
It's frustrating that those who have faith that all life evolved from a microbe just *_dismiss_* the intelligent design argument as if it's not valid, apparently without realizing their own illogic. And then they struggle like trying to walk through a wall trying to force fit their naturalistic materialistic beliefs onto the observations of science.
Adam can first. The egg producer(woman) came second.
There is no difference in the metal machines and biological machine. And the none creationist divide it that way.
Evolution is the most blatant lie ever sold.
A program must have a programmer.
That's fine, but it means you need to be careful deciding what is and might not be a program.
And yet it's fact
Only idiots and fools do not see that there is a Creator.
Psalms 14:1-3
1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. 2 The LORD looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.
Because it says so in your fairy tale book
This guy is just saying a whole lot of nothing. Either he truly doesn't understand evolutionary theory or he's actively choosing to misrepresent it. Also, just because you're a medical doctor does not make you qualified to speak on things like evolutionary biology
The notion that all life evolved from a microbe is 19th century mythology that can 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 be believed by faith with no support from modern molecular biology.
@KenJackson_US - you also don't understand evolution and biology. Chloroplasts and mitochondria have their own DNA. The nucleus came from archaea
then why don't you speak up. r u qualified?
We can understand scientific facts, when well explained in layman's verbiage, if we have sound, good minds.
Scientists aren't a special class of high priests with mysterious brains that comprehend on levels higher than us.
They do have knowledge , time, and are equipped to discover many things, of which knowledge that then can be passed to us.
It's no less than you think that you do "understanding" the ToE.
It is up to us to use the information that we learn to decide what we are going to believe about it.
In my estimation the ToE is astoundingly none supportable.
It is, though, the current establishment view, its "sacred cow", so to speak. It is tightly woven into all aspects of the establishment view. To admit that it isn't true would unravel so much of mainstream, established, educational, intellectual infrastructure. It would be of major, major embarrassment. It would be nearly unexplainable to the world, how they could have been so duped for such a long period of time. It is something that they have willingly participated in.
Most importantly, it would remove a major underpinning in the beloved atheistic view of the establishment. To leave wide open the window of belief in God, for many of them, is unthinkable. Some of them have even said this out loud. They would rather continue to believe lies than to believe in God.
First, there are many "christians" who support the theory of evolution. Some say that their god initiated evolution. Of course, there is no consistency in any religion and there is no consensus among "christians" who don't even know jesus birthday, or easter. Second, "christianity" cannot even decide on its own theology. For example, "christianity" has not decided if the eucharist is literal or symbolic. Third, there remains a stubborn fraction of "christianity", the creationists, who insist that all science and human endeavor must be discarded unless it fits a 6000 year old myth.
Of those Christians who think they support evolution- it is because they think it's ' pretty much proven' & beyond that they are not giving it any other thought. In the process, they are withdrawing an important component of their faith- and that will be a blindspot for them in their hearts- but at least they are aware of their need for salvation- you know- how God Himself came to the earth as a man, and provided the only pathway to eternity in His kingdom. Prior to that- it was all lambs & goats- which no modern society could have ever sustained. You're worried about translations- theology comes down to looking at history and lining it up with scripture. For the last 400 years, you most definitely have no excuses now, & can answer your own questions raised here in the comments- but are you pretending to defend evolution in this comment? You have not got the evidence that you think you have- I guess if you're okay with hand crafted plaster models you will think you do. Life itself is a whole other topic. And so is the exploding mungbeen big bang .. laws of physics. Get praying. J
@@UserRandJ You have produced an epic piece of 'holier than thou' dogma. "christian" theology does not line up with history. jesus is a myth man. There is no description, written or oral, of him anywhere. No notes, no sketch no portrait. There is no worthwhile evidence of the biblical jesus. "christian" theology is an ugly mess, riddled with contradiction, errors and outright lies. It is largely pagan and much of it was contrived well after the death of jesus. The triangular god of "christianity", virgin birth, sainthood, purgatory, offerings, blood sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, transfiguration, 40 day spiritual cleansing, ascension, hell, demons, sanctification, sky whispering, incense burning and the rosary are all pagan or late inventions of "christianity".
First prove your god, or try to invent a reasonable one, preferably with morals next time. BTW worshipping a hand crafted plaster model, or picture, of jesus is idolatry.
@rf7477 There certainly is an ugly mess in recorded history since man has continuously placed himself above God, and here you are spinning that Web as best as you can talking lack if evidence- as though that will be the be all and end all of the matter- regardless of the very clear fact that God Himself came to the earf as a man to provide the way home if you opt to have faith- where lambs & goats was not gonna be sustainable in the modern world- you can find many reasonable examples in archaeology that point to Jesus being a real bloke- for example view Expedition Bible channel -" Is this where Jesus was tried" & even at the end you'll see the mosaic floor of the soldiers quarters in the car park. There's plenty of evidence to thrash out with you-
But beyond that- search Gospel written in the stars - Mazzaroth, and explain that away- great chat Rf, & God Bless. Regards Jake
@rf7477 Hey Rf, you can continue pissing in the wind and desperately hoping Jesus is a myth, but there's easy archaeology to show the history written about him is precise- not any way you're going to explain that away- search pool of siloam, and even expedition bible channel- ' is this where Jesus was tried ' video- notice too at the end of this, the mosaic tiled floor in the soldiers quarters in the car park- it is authentic stuff.
AND rf- if you need evidence, find it. Search Gospel written in the stars, Mazzaroth, and watch any video on that, you will find you are slightly off in your views. But what ever mate, you can go you're own way my friend eternity is one phuking long time either way- so choose wisely what memories you buy with your soul. Regards Jake
Maybe nature is the designer. Tell did God use a spell or a wand to create life.
Come on guys, it is not so difficult to pronounce his surname properly...Incredible
But we all start as a single cell without all the biological machinery in place. The biological machinery is grown, and is not put in place by a creator. So it's not true that all the biological machinery has to be in place together at the same time.
All cells have the machinery in place, or they wouldn't be cells. There are no cells, as you suggest, that don't have the biological machinery already - that's not a thing. They are certainly capable of creating all the machinery they need, but that ability is dependent on the machinery already being there to start with. So it is very true, that all the machinery must be there all at once for a cell to be alive. And that demands a creator.
As Abiogenesis could not prove how life could ever come from non-life, consider this:
Could a first primitive cell, by chance only, when it formed, had the ability to:
- detect where the food source is
- redirect it's way to the food source
- move to the food source
- transform it's body to reach out to the food source
- open it's outer layer to eat the food
- have the system to digest the food
- put out the waste of the food
- transform what was digested into life energy
- to make a copy of itself
Did the first primitive cell formed by chance, or others suggested, by right conditions, have all those abilities all together, for if it did not, it will die shortly after it formed, a death of starvation. If it somehow got all those abilities right when it formed, it is proof that it was designed by it's Creator, God.
Initially how does anything get created without a creator?
As Abiogenesis could not prove how life could ever come from non-life, consider this:
Could a first primitive cell, by chance only, when it formed, had the ability to:
- detect where the food source is
- redirect it's way to the food source
- move to the food source
- transform it's body to reach out to the food source
- open it's outer layer to eat the food
- have the system to digest the food
- put out the waste of the food
- transform what was digested into life energy
- to make a copy of itself
Did the first primitive cell formed by chance, or others suggested, by right conditions, have all those abilities all together, for if it did not, it will die shortly after it formed, a death of starvation.
As Abiogenesis could not prove how life could ever come from non-life, consider this:
Could a first primitive cell, by chance only, when it formed, had the ability to:
- detect where the food source is
- redirect it's way to the food source
- move to the food source
- transform it's body to reach out to the food source
- open it's outer layer to eat the food
- have the system to digest the food
- put out the waste of the food
- transform what was digested into life energy
- to make a copy of itself
Did the first primitive cell formed by chance, or others suggested, by right conditions, have all those abilities all together, for if it did not, it will die shortly after it formed, a death of starvation.