The first cell?

posted by Rasobasi420

The Creator decision is a much greater leap of faith than what you described.

So if a Creator, the next question is where did he she or it come from?

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Rasobasi420

The Creator decision is a much greater leap of faith than what you described.

So if a Creator, the next question is where did he she or it come from?

The skies! -No seriously, its a good question. What does all the religions say about that? A being that has been there for all time?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

Originally posted by CaptainKirk
I find it funny that some of you are so quick to judge the idea of a Creator ridiculous while you turn to believing in something that is unobserved, untested, and quite frankly impossible according to conventional biology.

I find it funny that some of you are so quick to jump to te immediate conclusion that it was a creator, and not just an anomoly, or some other unknown situation that created the first cell.

The Creator decision is a much greater leap of faith than what you described.

I think you misunderstood me. I had no intention of turning this into a religious debate. I must admit I am a theist, but a questioning one. I would debate pro-evolution in a creationism/evolution debate.

what I was pointing out was what I find to be an absurdity among atheists such as yourself. Some atheists accuse theists of irrationality because they believe in something which is unproven. I find it funny that they don't realize that they too believe in something which has never been observed, tested, and violates some of the basic biological laws: as in the origin of life from non-life.

posted by CaptainKirk

I find it funny that they don't realize that they too believe in something which has never been observed, tested, and violates some of the basic biological laws: as in the origin of life from non-life. [Edited by Don W]

Who said it is a basic law of biology? I am unaware of that. It is a theologian’s argument. That is not even an argument. It is a quip.

Obviously, life did come from non-life. That’s a fact.



[edit on 8/23/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Who said it is a basic law of biology? I am unaware of that. It is a theologian’s argument. That is not even an argument. It is a quip.

Are you kidding? It is called cell theory and is the fundemental premise for all of biology. It includes these premises:

1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.

Obviously, life did come from non-life. That’s a fact.

Since when? The process of abiogenisis from lifeless chemicals is entirely theoretical. It has never been tested or observed. It's an idea. Last time I checked an idea was pretty far from a fact.

Now, are you a true researcher and scientist or are you just a gullable conspirator with an agenda like most of the people on this site?

posted by CaptainKirk

It is called cell theory and is the fundamental premise for all of biology. It includes these premises:

1. all known living things are made up of cells.
2. the cell is structural & functional unit of all living things.
3. all cells come from pre-existing cells by division.
(Spontaneous Generation does not occur).
4. cells contains hereditary information which is passed from
cell to cell during cell division.
5. All cells are basically the same in chemical composition.
6. all energy flow (metabolism & biochemistry) of life occurs
within cells.

Item 1, says “all known . . ” so what’s the problem? You don’t know about the earlier cells. Yet it would be ludicrous to infer because you don’t know of them, they did not exist.
Item 3. Says “ . . come from pre-existing cells . . “ which is true, today, to my best knowledge. I’m not sure about tomorrow. But regardless, it would not apply in the early days of life.

Don’t invoke the 2nd law of thermodynamic on me, please.

Deny ignorance is my agenda. I have already explained the origin of life in a post above. You’ll have to try to get over it.

Item 1, says “all known . . ” so what’s the problem? You don’t know about the earlier cells. Yet it would be ludicrous to infer because you don’t know of them, they did not exist.

It said all known organisms are made up of cells. That is the basic premise of biology. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you asserting that there existed at one point living organisms not made up of cells? That quite an unsupported assertion.

Item 3. Says “ . . come from pre-existing cells . . “ which is true, today, to my best knowledge. I’m not sure about tomorrow. But regardless, it would not apply in the early days of life.

And why not? Life at the cell level has changed very little over the course of earth's history. What makes you so quick to think that biological laws were fundamentally different when we weren't there to test them?

Most of what you are saying is without support. I find it ridiculous for you to claim such as fact.

Deny ignorance is my agenda. I have already explained the origin of life in a post above. You’ll have to try to get over it.

Well if you want to deny ignorance I would suggest reading up on your old 7th grade biology books.


[edit on 23-8-2006 by CaptainKirk]

[edit on 23-8-2006 by CaptainKirk]

Originally posted by donwhite
I have already explained the origin of life in a post above. You’ll have to try to get over it.

Gosh... then you've got $50,000 bucks waiting for you!!!

Click Me

Not to mention the fame that comes along with having done something hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists having been working on for about 50 years, but have been unable to accomplish.

I'm going to have to vote you WATS