Evolution and Cell Theory

@sirkewl Said

Sounds like a bunch of people are stretching the facts and are not open to reality to me.

Life can not come from something that is not living. I'm going to teach my children that, taking special attention to show them what cell theory says, and then say, and then a bunch of people years later decided that because they were uncomfortable with the idea of God, that they would say that not all cells come from pre-existing cells, and that cells can spontaneously happen over millions of years, just because they don't like the idea that only life can create life, because that would mean the first life was created by a living entity, God!

@soypuke Said

You dont even have proof god exists and you make fun of atheists?

What makes you so sure that it was god? Maybe it was a flying spaghetti monster?

@sirkewl Said
Life can not come from something that is not living. I'm going to teach my children that

@Asme251 Said

What? Have you not read what Alexkid wrote?

DNA can be created from non living materials. The experiment that Alex mentioned showed that. Plus, all living cells are made up of non-living materials. So life has to come from non-living sources. There is nothing to suggest the spontaneous appearance of cells.
Here is the experiment:
https://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/miller_urey_experiment.html

@jonnythan Said

You might want to hold off teaching your kids that, because it's probably not true.

@sirkewl Said

LOL!

Honestly, it's illogical that life can come from non-life.

The first life came from something living. This trying to discover how life was created from non-life is ridiculous and just plain wrong.

What makes me sure it was God, I'm living here, right now, breathing. And since life only comes from other living things, I know that it was God, because only the uncaused cause of the universe can be the uncaused cause of life, and only life can create life, and since only something outside of time-space can be an uncaused cause, and that uncaused cause created life, that uncaused cause is life. So by definition, anything that exists outside time-space, that is living, would be God, because anything living able to create a universe and then life in that universe would be omni-potent, omni-sceince, and omni-present, and therefore the definition of God!

It is completely logical, and to me, the one and only way life can form, because it goes against all biological knowledge that life can come from non-life. And I will teach my children to see through the lies of Abiogenesis, and they will laugh at it as fairytales like I do, because life can not come from non-life!

So, I still want you guys to tell me why Abiogenesis, life coming from non-life, is a relevant science when it compares to Cell Theory, that states all cells come from pre-existing cells. I guess you guys need to append that, to fit Abiogenesis. . .

Oh wait, nobody has shown that cells can form yet, because it has never happened in a lab yet, and never will!

@soypuke Said

Have you even been reading the articles and posts from alexkidd and asme?

You claim to want to know the truth, but thats ironic of you, you dont even want to try to learn.

@sirkewl Said

What part of Fairy tales do you not understand. . .

Life can not happen from non-life, period, end of story!

Keep telling yourselves that!

@sirkewl Said

Prove to me that life can come from non-life.

@sirkewl Said

LOL!

All I need to know is cell theory.

All cells come from pre-existing cells.

Nothing can sway me from the truth. Life came from the Ultimate form of life, God.

@sirkewl Said

LOL!

All I need to know is cell theory.

All cells come from pre-existing cells.

Nothing can sway me from the truth. Life came from the Ultimate form of life, God.

Quote:
Another objection is that Miller-Urey Experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. Although lightning storms are thought to have been very common in the primordial atmosphere, they are not thought to have been as common as the amount of electricity used by the Miller-Urey experiment implied. These factors suggest that much lower concentrations of biochemicals would have been produced on Earth than was originally predicted (although the time scale would be 100 million years instead of a week).