this will be short with no links from me for now.


In my opinion you cannot have life with out a cell membrane and you cannot have a cell membrane without life.


Now the people who believe that life was spontaneous will tell you that some proteins decided one day to make a cell membrane out of a water bubble.


But who told these non-living proteins that they needed to build said membrane. Also how did these proteins code the perfect computer code into the DNA of the first cell.

by the way we can build a cell but we cannot make it live. We cannot do what nature did by accident.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'

No but the old magician in the sKy can ,out of dust and spittle ,now that's what I call a star turn


fullywirewd

I'll go with ... spontanious.

I can't make a rock either, even though nature can. Doesn't mean we can't begin to understand how rocks form though. Nature has more at her disposal than we do - billions of years being perhaps the most important in either case.

Sounds to me like you're posing an argument from ignorance to apply to abiogenesis from an anti-evolutionary perspective (always iffy ground, since evolution has little to say about abiogenesis). It seems to me entirely likely that the first self-replicating protein strings were not what we would today call cells, nor what we would probably term life. However, as they continued to replicate and mutate, they likely became, over really quite a long time, what we do now term cellular life.

There is admittedly a great deal of work to be done on this topic, and any perspective on this is necessarily speculative. How do you think it all came about, then, danielost?

but man can make a rock we can even make diamonds.

no life without a cell membrane.

I believe that God created life as is stated in the bible.

I concede that point - it was a poor choice of analogy. Nevertheless, it was only illustrative. Replace that with 'planet', if you like.

I think if we really wanted to and had the right space craft we could build a planet too. We know what the process is.

I think life creates itself. I also think the Universe is a living thing. I might be wrong, but it is how I think. I agree with Nucular nature has a loooong time to do things.

But the Bible doesn't mention single-celled organisms of the type you're discussing.

Anyway, as I said, the scientific account of abiogenesis is today necessarily speculative and controversial. The Creationist account to which you seem to ally yourself is dogmatic, entirely unevidenced, and incompatible with what we see around is today. I choose speculative and controversial.

Given some of the latest cell/DNA research, I think we'll be building fully-functioning cellular organisms before we're building planets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7203186.stm

I think you're under a misapprehension if, as you imply in the OP, you believe we can presently create cells from scratch but can't make them live.

maybe you should have read your own link better.

He told BBC News: "We like to distinguish synthetic life from artificial life.


"With synthetic life, we're re-designing the cell chromosomes; we're not creating a whole new artificial life system."

true it doesn't mention single cell life. So I guess I am supposed say it doesn't exist. OK for you here goes there is no such thing as single cell life.

There is also no volcanoes not mentioned in the bible.

I also am beginning to the the Universe is a living thing but who did it become.

So what evidence do you have to back up creation? Argueing abiogenesis does not support a case for creation. The bible is also not a valid arguement.

I will ask you the same question what evidence do you have for spontaneous life.

Nothing to prove it. But since there is no evidence of a creator, it seems logical. After all if there was a creator surely they would have had to come from somewhere. You can't argue a creator spontainiously came into existance but cells never did. It is also an even more illogical to argue that a creator has always existed since nothing else in the universe has done that.

My proof of a creator is water, salt, and ice.

I agree God did come from someplace else.

I believe that life started as pure energy. This energy garthered into living creatures. The smartest of these became god. The second smartest of these was Lucifer. This is why Lucifer is so upset.


See my post on the three types of energies.

That is not proof, that is water, frozen water and NaCl. NaCl all of this can be produce if you mix NaOH with HCl which gives H2O and NaCl, then you put the H2O in the freezer. So since I can do this, does that make me your creator?

This is less plausible than abiogenesis and has even less supporting evidence, you do realise this don't you? It also goes against the bible! Your going to hell with that philosophy, unless your CoE who say Hell is made up or Catholic, who'll let you repent.

Water= Hydrogen and Oxygen=explosive

Salt= is made up of a posion and an element that explodes in water. chloride-posion. sodium=exploids in water.

Ice is the only solid element that floats in it's liquid form. If water froze from the bottom to top it couldn't have life in it.

yep I do almost as much support is spontaneous life. Oh wait no support vs no support. sounds to me that they have the same support.

Actually that is not quite right. There are plausible theories for abiogenesis including the creation of amino acids spontaniously and various other possible methods.
Just because it has not been proven does not mean the methodology has not been looked at and possibly pathways have and are being looked at.
Yours is purely made up, sorry.

What does that prove except you know some very basic chemistry?

we run on rocket fuel and posion.

No, we run on sugar and electricity.

The current notion as to how life came into being is that RNA was first. Chains of nucleotides formed and some of these had catalytic properties to help peptide bonding, which spurred the development of more and more chains, faster than they were breaking down. This is in effect the first life.

The other nucleic acid, DNA, and other building blocks of life, lipids, carbohydrates and proteins would lead to the development of more complicated life forms. RNA molecules generated the first proteins.

Also, phospholipids have been known to spontaneously create the lipid bilayer which makes up the cell membrane.

The last time I looked we required water and salt. water being rocket fuel and salt being made up of poison. and salt is needed for the electricity to work properly in the body

It proves that God left us proof that he is there. The other proof is RNA and DNA. The two most advanced computer programs on the planet.

If they came from a living cell yes. but only if they came from a living cell

I believe you had to have proteins to make the RNA. Since RNA is made up of amino acids which are a form of proteins.

Ahhh yes!
The self-replicating proteins grew and as they grew they formed systems and in time the whole became like the part; survival took over. DNA was formed from the Laws of Conservation of Matter. As the growing grew more a blueprint was made of the formed images because the protein could grow no more.
Now, at this time, the proteins have grown all of the forms it can.

RNA is a nucleic acid, consisting of nucleotides

Yes, compounds do not have the same effect as the molecules that make them up. NaCl is not a poison where as Cl2 is, that is because they are different.
Actually it is the ions that are need and the Na in particular. Water is not rocket fuel either. Water is a compound produced by the combustion of rocket fuel, that is however not the same as rocket fuel.

No it is not. That is mere conjecture on your behalf.

no more so than it conjecture on your behalf that it isn't.

I know that water is not rocket fuel. but the two elements that make it up are.

Somehow, survival took over.
What I think it was is that proteins, the basic life, stacked upon itself in growth and the growth fell over and cause some scar tissue. The scar tissue grew because the proteins kept falling over. And bodies and systems were formed as the proteins stacked up on each other.
At all times, there was survival.
I say, 'As the least, so goes the greatest.'

that last line I think is in the bible

Yes it is actually because you need to believe in god for it be proof in the first place. Hence it can not be proof.

Actually rocket fuel is a hydrocarbon and require O2 for combustion. O2 its self is not rocket fuel.
Either way your analogy is erronious.

And you have to not believe in God for it not to be proof in the first place. Hence it is proof.

The appallo rockets used liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. The hydrogen burns, the oxygen is needed so it can burn.

Sodium ions (Na+) and Potassium ions (K+) are your nervous system.

When you electronically separate the H2 from the O, you do have two different types of atomic reactions, the O glows and the H2 blows in contact with flame. It may be the other way around, but that was a 5th grade experiment.

No, sorry it does not work like that. It is not and never can be considered proof at all.

Yes, hence O2 is not rocket fuel.

a) This is an important step forward towards the creation of artificial life.
b) It shows that your odd claim in the OP that "we can build a cell but we cannot make it live" is entirely fictional: we cannot make a cell from scratch, but if we could it's likely we know how to 'activate' it
c) I repeat my point: given that this is the state of play in terms of creating life, it's likely we'll be creating functioning cells from scratch a long time before we're creating planets.

(Edited to remove formatting error)