1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    11 Jan '12 03:51
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

    Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?

    In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory
    of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on.
    Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from
    somewhere, and the theory of evolution proposes that it arose spontaneously
    out of the inert chemicals of planet Earth perhaps 4 billion years ago.

    Could life arise spontaneously? If you read How Cells Work, you can see that
    even a primitive cell like an E. coli bacteria -- one of the simplest life
    forms in existence today -- is amazingly complex. Following the E. coli model,
    a cell would have to contain at an absolute minimum:

    •A cell wall of some sort to contain the cell
    •A genetic blueprint for the cell (in the form of DNA)
    •An enzyme capable of copying information out of the genetic blueprint to
    manufacture new proteins and enzymes
    •An enzyme capable of manufacturing new enzymes, along with all of the
    building blocks for those enzymes
    •An enzyme that can build cell walls
    •An enzyme able to copy the genetic material in preparation for cell
    splitting (reproduction)
    •An enzyme or enzymes able to take care of all of the other operations of
    splitting one cell into two to implement reproduction (For example, something
    has to get the second copy of the genetic material separated from the first,
    and then the cell wall has to split and seal over in the two new cells.)
    •Enzymes able to manufacture energy molecules to power all of the previously
    mentioned enzymes

    Speaking in general terms, life can only have come from one of two possible
    places:

    •Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living
    cell.

    •Supernatural creation - God or some other supernatural power created the
    first living cell.

    EVEN SCIENCE BELIEVES IN CREATION.

    Since Spontaneous creation has been disproved AlonG time ago that leaves
    SUPERNATURAL CREATION as the only possible source of the creation of the
    first cell.

    http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 06:46
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution11.htm

    Where Did the First Living Cell Come From?

    In order for the principles of mutation and natural selection in the theory
    of evolution to work, there have to be living things for them to work on.
    Life must exist before it can to start diversifying. Life had to come from
    some ...[text shortened]... rst cell.

    http://www.microbiologytext.com/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=27
    No even creationists are true believers of creationists.

    If the first living cell was created, as creationists claim - then where was it created? Tell me, or else creation falls like pile of dust. This is a basic fact that must be known by creationists.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    11 Jan '12 07:042 edits
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No even creationists are true believers of creationists.

    If the first living cell was created, as creationists claim - then where was it created? Tell me, or else creation falls like pile of dust. This is a basic fact that must be known by creationists.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
    In the sea, of course. Dummy. 😏

    P.S. It looks like I'm a dummy too. I forgot about plant life.

    Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place,
    and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth,
    and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
    Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and
    fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”;
    and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed
    after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their
    kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning;
    a third day.

    Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let
    birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” God created
    the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the
    waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and
    God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and
    multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the
    earth.” There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

    Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind:
    cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it
    was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle
    after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind;
    and God saw that it was good.

    Genesis chapter 1

    bacteria - (microbiology) single-celled or noncellular spherical or spiral or rod-shaped organisms lacking chlorophyll that reproduce by fission; important as pathogens and for biochemical properties; taxonomy is difficult; often considered to be plants
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 07:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    In the sea, of course. Dummy. 😏

    P.S. It looks like I'm a dummy too. I forgot about plant life.
    Yes, dummy. But the sea is big. Where, I ask, where in the sea?

    If you don't know, then creationism isn't worth anything. If you don't know that fundamental fact, then it is in itself a proof of evolution.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    11 Jan '12 08:021 edit
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Yes, dummy. But the sea is big. Where, I ask, where in the sea?

    If you don't know, then creationism isn't worth anything. If you don't know that fundamental fact, then it is in itself a proof of evolution.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
    I have to revise that for plant life was created first in the Garden of Eden.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Jan '12 08:19
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    •Spontaneous creation - Random chemical processes created the first living
    cell.
    Why the emphasis on 'random'? Chemical processes in general can hardly be described as 'random'. They follow well defined rules.

    Since Spontaneous creation has been disproved AlonG time ago...
    As always, the key claim is merely stated without evidence or argument and passed off as fact.
    At least tell us:
    1. Who proved it.
    2. When it was proved.
    3. A reference to the proof so we can verify it.
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 08:201 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I have to revise that for plant life was created first in the Garden of Eden.
    Okay, creationists revise their so called theories whenever they need. No eternal truth there. As we can expect. Creationism is nothing but a guesswork.

    So now the first life was created in Eden, was it, ey? I used Google Earth and found Eden in North Carolina, USA. So you say that the first life was cretaed in North Carolina? Are you joking? Where in the bible does it say that Eden is to be found in North Carolina? Or are you producing even more guesswork?

    Creation is based upon nothing more than mere guesswork. According to creationists the first it was in the sea and then creationism state that it was in North Carolina. Se his words above. What will it be in the next guess?

    Just admit that you don't know! Admit it! Creationism isn't more than a guesswork... (*sigh*)

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    11 Jan '12 11:28
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Okay, creationists revise their so called theories whenever they need. No eternal truth there. As we can expect. Creationism is nothing but a guesswork.

    So now the first life was created in Eden, was it, ey? I used Google Earth and found Eden in North Carolina, USA. So you say that the first life was cretaed in North Carolina? Are you joking? Where in ...[text shortened]... it! Creationism isn't more than a guesswork... (*sigh*)

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
    There is also an Eden, Texas. Just like there is a Paris, Texas there is
    also a Paris, France. But these are located in different parts of the
    world. Also these cities did not exist at the time of the creation. Eden,
    North Carolina wasn't even in existence until 1967 so Eden, Texas
    would have been a better choice since there is a Garden of Eden there.
    However, neither one of these are correct.

    The Holy Bible describes Eden's location as follows:

    Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided
    and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the
    whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good;
    the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is
    Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river
    is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
    (Genesis 2:19-14)
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Jan '12 11:45
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The Holy Bible describes Eden's location as follows:

    Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided
    and became four rivers. The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the
    whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is good;
    the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second ri ...[text shortened]...
    is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
    (Genesis 2:19-14)
    Which is all rather odd considering that later in the Bible it suggests that the whole world was changed quite considerably due to a world wide flood.

    It is my belief that Eden was in New Zealand, and after the flood, Noah assumed he hadn't moved, but really had floated half way round the world and ended up in the Middle east.
  10. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    45427
    11 Jan '12 12:06
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    No even creationists are true believers of creationists.

    If the first living cell was created, as creationists claim - then where was it created? Tell me, or else creation falls like pile of dust. This is a basic fact that must be known by creationists.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
    Your question can not be really correctly answered by any living or dead person on earth of the exact place. But if Christians can (try) answer it by clues in the Bible...

    We'll say: the Garden of Eden of course.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden
    The Genesis creation narrative relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush).[2] There are hypotheses that place Eden at the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates (northern Mesopotamia), in Iraq (Mesopotamia), Africa, and the Persian Gulf. For many medieval writers, the image of the Garden of Eden also creates a location for human love and sexuality, often associated with the classic and medieval trope of the locus amoenus.
  11. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 12:34
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    Your question can not be really correctly answered by any living or dead person on earth of the exact place. But if Christians can (try) answer it by clues in the Bible...

    We'll say: the Garden of Eden of course.

    from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden
    The Genesis creation narrative relates the geographical location of both Eden and the g ...[text shortened]... e and sexuality, often associated with the classic and medieval trope of the locus amoenus.
    Here we have two creationists that believe in defferent versions ov their religion. One where the first living cell is created in North Carolina, even if he changed his mind from the sea, and another one who believe that the garden in North Carolina is situated in a totally other part of the Earth, and and was created there. If they don't even agree to eachother, then it's not much truth in the creational theory. If they cannot decide among themselves, then why believe in such a theory? Creation sucks.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
  12. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 12:38
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    There is also an Eden, Texas. Just like there is a Paris, Texas there is
    also a Paris, France. But these are located in different parts of the
    world. Also these cities did not exist at the time of the creation. Eden,
    North Carolina wasn't even in existence until 1967 so Eden, Texas
    would have been a better choice since there is a Garden of Eden there. ...[text shortened]... is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
    (Genesis 2:19-14)
    So now you have changed you answer from sea to North Carolina, further to Texas, and now you're guessing at a fourth place. What will be the fifth, and sisth? When will you stop guessing, and just give me a location. Or admit that you don't know.

    And if you don't know, I can understand, because there are not much of agreement of various creationists. And you know why? Because you don't know!

    Believe in creation and you don't know anything. Because creationism is false teachings.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
  13. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 12:411 edit
    (This is fun!)
  14. Jo'Burg South Africa
    Joined
    20 Mar '06
    Moves
    45427
    11 Jan '12 12:48
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Here we have two creationists that believe in defferent versions ov their religion. One where the first living cell is created in North Carolina, even if he changed his mind from the sea, and another one who believe that the garden in North Carolina is situated in a totally other part of the Earth, and and was created there. If they don't even agree to ea ...[text shortened]... ves, then why believe in such a theory? Creation sucks.

    (Just using creationists retorics.)
    FabianFnas - Firstly you forgot to take in to consideration that I did say try (in brackets) - By simply saying there are two different answers from the same religion does not proof that we can not decide among ourselves because it wasn't such a exercise.

    I can use the same "retorics" to say that science is totally false as some scientists said that nothing is faster than the speed of light until recently they found something faster. They don't agree with each other thus there is no truth in science. You see the fail in this???
  15. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    11 Jan '12 12:57
    Originally posted by Nicksten
    FabianFnas - Firstly you forgot to take in to consideration that I did say [b]try (in brackets) - By simply saying there are two different answers from the same religion does not proof that we can not decide among ourselves because it wasn't such a exercise.

    I can use the same "retorics" to say that science is totally false as some scientists said t ...[text shortened]... y don't agree with each other thus there is no truth in science. You see the fail in this???[/b]
    (Still using creationists rhetorics)

    But if try is the only thing you can do, as a creationist, then there is not much ground for the creationism to be true, is it? Just try to guess some more, and perhaps you can come nearer to the Truth, by mere chance, but yet.

    If you want to reach truth then you have to go outside your little creational box, and look to science.

    Tell me, what has speed of light to do with creation? Is this some kind of creational straw man to avoid to answer the question?

    The question is still - Where was the first living cell created? If you don't know the answer, just say so, and accept that the creation isn't a theory of wheight, but just a theory of tryings and guessings.

    (Just using creationists rhetorics.)
Back to Top