|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions about the living cell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Actually, I can It's quite simple to do this when one actually understands the physics behind both statistical mechanics and general relativity. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Oh dear, then I think my old students are in trouble 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 ThermodynamicsFirst 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
You may be putting the cart before the horse. You assume it is vital for life to start. Give us an example of a living organism without it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
(1) He's right. For your information, Cavediver is our resident physicist/cosmologist. He's a professional, he really knows what he's talking about here. (Hint: engage him about cells, you might stand a chance.) 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I'm afraid that's no longer possible. Life has progressed and the first primitive life-forms have been superceded without leaving a trace long ago. When was it ever? Prove that it could have been. Prove that early life was primitive/non-complex (in comparison to living cells).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
To cut a long story short: the first law of thermodynamics says that God could not have created everything ex nihilo. Fine. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
at this stage we're more interested in looking at plausibility. Can we agree that we have a workable model of how protocells could have developed in the early earth? No. What 'workable model'? Not a single experiment that science has ever performed has produced a single living cell; Miller/Urey or Szostak notwithstanding.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Absolute proof is impossible, but some evidential support can be gleaned from the fact that, for example, mitochondria have their own genetic material and are likely to be descendants of simple free living cells that were captured by other cells, thus creating a more complex combination. If you document that I am willing to read it but even that is a long way from functional DNA replication for proteins.
Now do me a favour and prove that God created cells. 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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Or a natural creation of simpler cell-like structure that do not yet operate like modern cell, but have the capacity to evolve to such more complex cells. Like in Cavediver's film. 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
finding some that say "matter" might help your cause 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
So? It's a model. No one says it's the absolute truth. But this model is a lot more plausible than "poof". Not unless you can demonstrate it. The truth is...you can't.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
This is a science forum. You are expected to base your arguments upon the kind of evidence that a scientist might recognise. "It says so in my holy book 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I don't have to. Parts of it are already fact. Fact: lipids form vesicles Fact: polymers can form spontaneously Fact: monomers can penetrate lipid vesicles Fact: polymers can't None of which even comes close to replicating proteins for life.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Cool I see. Have a nice time posting to the other board members, professor. Good evening.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5241 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
removed
Edited by Calypsis4, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024