Hello:?

I remember from Logic in 100 Min, that sometimes we do not use the best arguments to ?support our believes in the Bible as word of God. ?

What are your opinions about the Laminin issue? You can watch the related video in the ?next link: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_e4zgJXPpI4

Bye for now

What are you asking, Perla?  Are you asking if using the image of Laminin is a good, or bad way of demonstrating the truth-claims of Scripture?  Or are you asking about the reality of Laminin itself?

I just need a little clarification; I’m not the brightest bulb in the pack. 

Hello:

I am asking about the use of the “laminin cross like shape” as way to support Christian claims, in the sence the guy in the video is preaching it.

Bye, bye

If you look up Laminin, you’ll see that electron micrographs of the molecule show that it doesn’t look anything at all like a Christian cross, or any kind of cross really. It’s just the conceptual diagrams that look like a cross, and that because it was the simplest way to draw the diagram in such a way as to show the connections between the atoms in the molecule.

Aside from that, the cross is a fairly simple shape, and I don’t think I would take any appearance of such a simple shape in nature to be anything significant regarding God’s hand in design.

DNA molecules are much more complex, and in my opinion, are definite, undeniable signs of God’s hand in creation.

From a preacher’s kid . . .

A good illustration,
A lousy proof

Andrew D. Schalchlin

Interestingly, these electron micrographs do show a predominance of ‘cross’ images:

While not all captures of laminin bear a distinct resemblance to a cross, a number of these slides do.  Hence the illustration itself is not a logical proof, nor, I think is it meant to be.  Rather, it is a snapshot of the intricacy of God’s testimony in creation.

When the Bible says we have a general revelation through nature (Romans 1), it for sure doesn’t mean leaving crosses or icthuses in weird places, or Virgin Mary images on toast.  Of course design does point to God, though.

beforHim wrote:

When the Bible says we have a general revelation through nature (Romans 1), it for sure doesn’t mean leaving crosses or icthuses in weird places, or Virgin Mary images on toast.  Of course design does point to God, though.

I agree about the Virgin Mary images on toast: doesn’t mean anything.  But what do you mean when you say, “it for sure doesn’t mean leaving crosses or icthuses in weird places...” (italics mine).  What is a weird place?  Surely not the human body?  Can you be more specific?  Right now your statement commits the fallacy of ambiguity, and I’d like to know what you actually mean.