Questions about the living cell

Only if you're playing mind games but not if you're dealing with reality.The 'Big Bang' was not observed. It is not testable, repeatable, nor verifiable. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics is.You need to concede this point, friend.

You said it!"The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy, states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed". Wikipedia."The Laws of Thermodynamics
First law: Energy is conserved; it can be neither created nor destroyed." Purdue University science.Now how many sources do I have to quote before you realize that you are in error and matter is NOT created anywhere or at any time in the universe?Not only so but the terminology 'pair creation' is innacurate.

Give us an example of a living organism without it.

Forget that. Is he out of his mind? I don't care what his qualifications are. If what he is saying were true then one of the most firmly established laws of science is in the trash can. Certainly the atom can be divided. We all know that. We know matter can be transformed but what he describes is not 'new' matter. Edited by Calypsis4, : correction of quote

When was it ever? Prove that it could have been.Prove that early life was primitive/non-complex (in comparison to living cells).

No, its related. If matter cannot be created nor create itself by natural/physical cause then it would necessitate a supernatural one.God cannot be restricted by the laws that He Himself created. He is outside the physical realm and therefore natural law does not apply to Him.The same is true with the first cell. Nature cannot make cells outside of already existing cells and no scientist has been able to produce the effect in the lab. Therefore the only option left is a supernatural creation of the cell in operable order.

No.What 'workable model'? Not a single experiment that science has ever performed has produced a single living cell; Miller/Urey or Szostak notwithstanding.

If you document that I am willing to read it but even that is a long way from functional DNA replication for proteins. Sure. In the same way I can firmly establish that Henry Ford is responsible for Ford vehicles on our roads. There was a written account of his life, personal witnesses who saw him and spoke of him. The same is true of God. He has a written account of who He is, what He did, and those who experienced His power (prophets & apostles.) He was manifest in the flesh among men, performed miracles and raised from the dead and appeared in the sight of hundreds of witnesses answering His promise to them that He would indeed rise from the dead.(Mark 10:34)Is that sufficient?

The You Tube production was guesswork. No one knows what the supposed first living cell was like or even if it was a eukaryote or a prokaryote.

Your condescedning attitude is beggining to bother me, professor.Einstein said that 'matter' and 'energy' were interchangeable terms. So whom should we believe; Einstein or those like you?Concerning the 1st Law of Thermo. Who should we believe: virtually every science textbook in the last 100 yrs which tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed or individuals like you who think you can magically whip up matter?But if you're really talking about quantum physics then say so and we can drop this matter. The quantum world is a weird world of Alice and Wonderland possiblities.I know we're off topic. We will take it up elsewhere.

Not unless you can demonstrate it.The truth is...you can't.

This website is called 'creation vs evolution'. Has that occurred to you? DO you even think about where you are right now? So if you don't wish to encounter discussion about the Creator then you better look elsewhere because that is the main topic of this website.'My holy book' also happens to be the historical account of the creation, fall of man, the incarnation of God's Son, and the redemption of mankind by Him. Like it or not, the symbol of the crucified One is on every single cell in your body. AND...we are right on topic!Now try and tell me that Laminin is not scientific.

None of which even comes close to replicating proteins for life.

I see.Have a nice time posting to the other board members, professor.Good evening.

removedEdited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.