And once again we delve into "God did it" territory. You are using Scripture to explain a natural occurrence when no one has shown the Old Testament to be completely factual. Saying the laminins look like the cross doesn't matter. You can take it as a matter of faith but the fact that Scripture says that he is in all things doesn't prove that laminins are God's way of being in all living things. All you're doing is using an unproven source that you are interpreting to prove your beliefs. Do you understand - you are interpreting the words to mean that God used the laminins. What if God had meant something else? How do you know he meant something else?
The other thing you have to keep in mind is that you used the discovery to uphold your beliefs. But if it is as you say, then theologians should have predicted the laminins and known where to look. But Scripture makes no predictions. For centuries, that phrase was not interpreted to mean that laminins shaped like crosses are keeping our cells in shape. Theologians were not going around telling people laminins were keeping their cells together. When microscopes were invented, theologians were not looking at cell walls trying to find this so called word of God holding our cells together. Even with electron microscopes, theologians were happily spouting away that it was God's literal words binding the world. But along comes the laminin and now creationists want to claim it? I say no. Creationists never hypothesized the existence of the laminin and have no right to accept it into their theology. When creationists are able to use Scripture to make a prediction about what we may find in the world around us, look for that thing, and show it, then creationists can claim that. Otherwise, hands off the scientists' work.
Scripture did not predict such a thing would be found. Theologians were not scouring the cell wall looking for it. Those demon-spawn anti-God evolutionist scientists you detest so much found it.
It was after the discovery that creationists said, "See what THEY found!" And this has always been the tactic with creationists. They are always using OTHER people's work to justify their views rather than doing the research themselves.
If the Bible is such a storehouse of scientific info that you claim, then find me an example of a creationist who used Scripture to predict a cell structure, searched for it, and then found it.
No, you are missing the point and you are doing it deliberately. I never said that the scriptures mentioned 'Laminin' per se. But they make if clear that Christ, who is co-Creator with the Father holds all things together. The truth is that HE is the binding element.
Once again, all you have done is twisted a discovery to support your idea. Prior to this, fundamentalists argued that God holding all things was the literal words that God spoke. They never talked about cell walls or laminins. Do you get it? They interpreted the Bible to mean one thing and after the discovery decided to interpret the Bible to mean this other thing.
This is bearing false witness. Creationists want creationism to be a science; well they have to show how it is a science. Their ideas are based on Scripture. They have to show how the Bible predicts the world around us and what we will discover. But creationists have failed to do this. They spend their days scouring the interweb looking at other people's research. There is a word for that - a leech. And that's what creationists are; they are leeches. And leeches make poor scientists.
If you want to prove me wrong, then show me a prediction about the cell that a creationist made using Scripture, the research and experiments that the creationist performed, and that the creationist found what was looked for. Doing that goes a long way to proving me wrong. Failing to do that only serves to reinforce my position.
You are in error, but I am not going to argue with you any longer.
You say I'm in error, but you won't do the thing I said would prove me wrong. You say you won't argue with me, but I believe it is because you can't argue with logic and reason.
I told you what you can do to prove me wrong. Find an example of someone using Scripture to make a prediction about something we would find in a cell, doing the research and experimentation, and then showing what he found. If you can do this, I can at least consider your argument.
It wouldn't matter if it looked like Mickey Mouse, you bypassed the natural explanations and went to using Scripture to support it as if it had predicted the laminin and its shape all along.
If you believe that the Bible made the prediction of the shape of the laminin and its location, then produce an instance where a creationist "scientist" used Scripture to make a prediction about what we could find in a cell, did research, and produced his findings that it was right where Scripture said it would be.
This should be quite possible because you have consistently held to the belief that the Bible is a resource for scientific research. If you are right, show us.
The problem, Caly, is that you want to say, "God did it," but you can't say it. Everything you have shown, all your pictures and all you've said are always underlined with that explanation. And that's probably what frustrates you.
You are trying to argue the naturalistic explanations behind science, and that's great, but you are arguing with incomplete facts. You pick a snippet here and there in an effort to back up your ideas without looking at the alternative explanations for what you have presented. You started with the conclusion, "God did it," and worked backwards to reach the premise, which is also "God did it." And that's frustrating, I know. After all, in your mind the evidence matches perfectly.
But that's the point we're trying to make. You began with the conclusion without first proving the premise. We can't accept the premise unless you can prove it, and you can't prove it, at least, not to us. To yourself you may have all sorts of evidence that you consider definitive, but to us, it is all subjective.
That's why you feel frustrated and you have every right to be. But you have to understand, Caly, that we want to understand your position, but we want to understand it through science. That's why we can't accept your conclusion that God did it - it's because science says that there is a natural explanation for everything that happens in the world around us. We may not know what it is, but there is one. What you need to do is show how science is wrong without resorting to your conclusion and that requires a lot more research and looking at sites that, frankly, you may not be comfortable looking at.
If you can do explain why the laminin can have no natural explanation for being the way it is, if you can disprove any natural explanation of science as wrong and a supernaturalistic explanation as right, then we can have a proper discussion.
Otherwise, showing pictures and saying "God did it, can't you see?" does nothing to advance the debate.