|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Questions about the living cell | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Calypsis4 writes: Give us an example of a living organism without it. 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 Life has progressed and the first primitive life-forms have been superceded without leaving a trace long ago. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Calypsis4 writes: Forget that. Good idea. Let's forget about the whole thing, because IT'S OFF-TOPIC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 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 Life has progressed and the first primitive life-forms have been superceded without leaving a trace long ago.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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
"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 finding some that say "matter" might help your cause And just so you know, not even energy is conserved in all cases - but that's a topic for bigger boys...
Not only so but the terminology 'pair creation' is innacurate. Oh thank Allah for Christians who can show us physicists where we're going wrong You're a hoot Edited by cavediver, : You'd think I could spell physicist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Calypsis4 writes: Prove that early life was primitive/non-complex (in comparison to living cells). 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. Now do me a favour and prove that God created cells. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
When was it ever? Prove that it could have been. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 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 5214 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Calypsis4 writes: 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. 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. You shouldn't give up so soon, only to reach for the supernatural gambit. Nature is so much more interesting than the parochial God-story. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5214 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 5214 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. By when did scientists have to produce life in a lab before supernatural creation became the only option left? Was it 50 years ago, 10 years ago, or just yesterday? In the same way, how long did primative culture have to come up with an explanation for lightning, before supernatural act became the only option left?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
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. So, IF we have a scientifically plausible scenario for the creation of the first proto-cells, and potential pathways as to how those proto-cells became the first cells - BUT, we have no proof as to whether this scenario is actually true, THEN is a supernatural creation still the only real option?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Calypsis4 writes: If you document that I am willing to read it Google or wiki "Lynn Margulis". Fascinating stuff.
God [...] has a written account of who He is, what He did [etc.] Is that sufficient? I'm afraid not. Because God has some contenders. They're called Zeus, Wodan, Jupiter, Krishna, etc. They all have written accounts and witnesses. Moreover, the diverse accounts tell conflicting stories. Why, God himself has two conflicting accounts of his creation of the world. If a book constitutes proof, then my bookcase if full of proof of evolution. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024