If intelligent scientists cannot seem to create life here, then why think that it happens by chance elsewhere?

Answer 1

Behind your question lies an excellent observation. Order does not come from disorder.

Let us compare the case of life with another case. The basic building block of life, a cell, is more complicated than a computer. Now, we have yet to discover a computer happening by chance out in space, and most people would consider that a ridiculous proposition anyway. All the more true, therefore, is this conclusion about a living cell.

Most people are, sadly, rather ignorant about the incredible complexity of life. Hence they seem to think it could happen by chance. They will invoke mathematics, Drake's theorem, etc. to say that it must have happened, but in fact, they are not really considering all of the odds involved. They won't do the same calculation about finding a computer out there somewhere.

Ultimately, all of the evolutionary theories require just as much, if not more, Faith as believing in God, for they can't find real scientific facts to back it all up.

Answer 2

Why don't all you fundamentalist science bashers read something about evolution before you criticize it. If you think the Book of Genesis is a more reliable source of knowledge than thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles based on reproducible evidence, that's fine.

Just keep in mind that from a scientific point of view, saying that evolution couldn't happen is just like saying the Earth has to be flat.

To answer the question: evolution has taken billions of years, and it's a parallel process that involved the biosphere of the whole World. A few scientists with a couple of reaction tubes can't quite reproduce that. Nobody created an artificial star, let alone a galaxy, either. Yet it's well known how start and galaxys could form by natural processes.

But actually, artificial self-replicating organic molecules have been made, both in experiments mimicking natural evolution and in more targeted experiments, and we're very close to making the first entirely synthetic virus.

Answer 3

Intelligent scientists didn't create life. Billions of years, coupled with a little luck, did. If you are at all interested, the Drake Equation can be used to calculate the number of planets with intelligent life. Unfortunatley, some of the variables in the equation are impossible to know, and thus the answer lies more in the scientist doing the calculations. Interesting stuff anyways.

Answer 4

scientists have created primitive life on earth. It can be called life by the definition of life, but it is hardly life as you may know it. It is the earliest form of life which borders on life in the broadest sense. According to the basic laws of mathematics life does exist elsewhere in the universe. Where? No one knows but according to the numbers involved it does exist. It may not be the form of life that we know but if it reproduces and shows the basic tendencies of life then it must be called life. It may be only microscopic, but it is life. Some day it will be found.

Answer 5

You're questioning the science of man when it's merely dawn. Humans have a long way to go and we have just recently walk out of the "primitive years". Realize that in the last 50 years, we went from wooden barrel wheels to man on moon. That's a big step in a short period of time. Now take that and calculate it exponentially from here - there is no limit. Your imagination truly is the limit of your wonders.

Besides, WE never created life to begin with....We're only "manipulating" with it to create DIFFERENT life.

Answer 6

In accusing you of a "flaw in your reasoning" Braxton_Paul has himself made a flaw in his reasoning. It's called begging the question. You are saying that order cannot happen by chance. He is taking for granted that birds fly by chance, and that is his "proof" that your supposition is wrong.

On the other hand, Bob's answer really only can claim, at most, to prove one thing: that there is no evidence for either side. It's not so much an argument "for" as it is an argument to say "we don't know." But your fundamental question remains, as Dr. D observed so well. And that is the question that advocates of macro-evolutionary theory will never succeed in answering.

Answer 7

hey!do u think thta u were boorn when scientists experimented on ur mother 2 create life.they did not create life on this planet.millions of years ago co-incidently when the climate was worse the properties required 2 create life were mixed togethern life was created.this can happen in other planets also,so don't depend on intelligent scientists.akki

Answer 8

As one of the earlier posters stated, scientists can't CREATE life, they can only manipulate available resources to make life happen. From out of nothing, natural life came into being, and it wasn't as simple as putting ingredients together for a recipe.

Answer 9

first of all, scientists can develope life using the same chemicals that started life on earth, second, u can create life, just have sex or plant a seed, third @ baxton paul, bird didnt create a machine that can fly through the air, they were born with wings, and i believe leonardo davinchi had a machine that could fly, but im not sur how long ago that was

Answer 10

A thousand years ago scientists couldn't develop a machine that would fly through the air, and yet "by chance" birds could. See the flaw in your reasoning?