Non-Theists: When and how did evolution begin and how did non-living matter produce living organisms?

Question

Doesn't this require evolutionists to believe in abiogenesis, otherwise known as spontaneous generation? And was not the theory of spontaneous generation refuted by Louis Pasteur and many other bioligists after him, who tested the theory in many different types of enviroments?

So are you not believing in something which has been proved to be scientifically impossible just because you choose not to want to believe in the only other possibility of the origin of life- creation by God?

Answer 1

So basically, your argument comes down to "Living matter cannot come from non-living matter, therefore it was magic!" There are plenty of possiblities, as far as how the first living matter could have appeared here, without God. The Earth was a much different place, when life first came to be, on it. Perhaps in such an environment, it was possible for living cells to develop from certain kinds of non-living matter. Perhaps living cells first arrived here on an asteroid that collided with the planet. Try to cast as much doubt on the notion as you want, it won't make your argument any more believable.

Answer 2

No one said ALL non theists believe that. We just do not believe in god. It is not an A or B question. Thanks

I looked into it a little more. This is what I found out. Thanks for opening my mind.

Fill a glass vessel with water, ammonia, carbon dioxide, and methane, seal it off, and run an electric spark through it for a few weeks. The sides of the glass will be coated with a sludge composed of the most common amino acids found in your bodies, including the four basic acids that (with a phosphate sugar backbone) encode the DNA molecule.

Yes, it's true that none of these experiments have yielded a self-replicating molecule, the necessary first step along the road of evolution.

But take a look at the sheer scale of the Earth's oceans compared to our test vessel. We're not talking about a 12 inch beaker bubbling away for a few weeks, but the entire Earth's oceans, filled with amino acids, quintillions of chemical interactions every second for a billion years. When viewed at that scale, the question isn't how could a self replicating molecule happen by chance, but what could possibly prevent one from forming.

That self-replicator molecule was the foundation for RNA and then DNA. When you peer inside the nucleus of a living cell, you are peering at a tiny fragment of that long ago, amino acid rich ocean, which the self-replicator found so confortable.

That's what cell walls do, preserve a bit of the ancient ocean for that self-replicating molecule. Likewise, skin was what was needed to keep with our cells that ocean in which they grew. That's why your blood has the same chemical salts, in the exact same proportions, as sea water. The total concentration of salts in sea water is greater because the ocean becomes saltier over the ages, with the difference in concentrations between our blood and seawater a direct measure of just how long ago our distant ancestors left the ocean for the dry land.

And none of it needed any gods.

Answer 3

God may have created the first sparks of life along with the rest of the universe. This however does not disprove evolution, and most centainly does not prove the existence of the Christian God, a caring God, or a God in human form. It merely proposes than there was a cause for this universe and that it was created by some other force, either inadvertently of porposely. For all we know our entire existence could be a blip on a super computer somewhere. An out there example I know, but anything is possible.

Answer 4

Two things:

1) If they were to someday prove that "God" did indeed start the process of life on earth, then that in no way proves Christianity to be the sole valid religion. Remember, Muslims could look at that same scenario and say that it proves the Islam creation theory.

2) The problem of how life began from "non-life" is also faced by religion, not just science. Isn't it scientifically impossible that God appeared out of nowhere, like creationists claim? You can't say "he just always was!" because that's ridiculous and you know it. Where did he come from?

Answer 5

First, not all non-theists believe in evolution. Nor do all religious people reject evolution.

Second, Pasteur did not refute the theory of spontaneous generation. He simply showed that it could not explain spoilage of meat broth in his laboratory.

Third, you ask us to speculate on events that have left very little physical evidence. There is a vast body of evidence for evolution of species (see references below) but little about how it all got started. That said, the problem of how the first molecules to reproduce themselves could arise spontaneously is not regarded by chemists as a difficult problem. The conditions of the early earth have been shown to be favorable for creating the subunits of DNA, RNA, and proteins.

Fourth, there is no such thing as something "proved to be scientifically impossible". Science is not in the business of proving and disproving things. It is in the business of formulating testable theories, and then testing them to see if they are predictive. You've been watching too many shampoo commercials.

Fifth, you seem desperate to reinterpret limited experiments in order to support your prejudices. The enormous progress of science in predicting nature's behavior is the direct result of self-doubt and re-checking of theories by experimentation. You would do well to borrow a page from science's playbook, and look for reasons why your beliefs may be wrong.

"Chance favors the prepared mind" - Louis Pasteur

Answer 6

When there is a lack of scientific evidence, we do research to determine the physics and chemistry behind it. We do not leap to mythology because we don't yet understand something.

Certainly there are things we do not understand - but we do know a lot more about the state of the world when life evolved than Pasteur knew.

The conditions under which life first originated on Earth are not clear, but they were certainly extreme compared to our modern climate. We must expect that it will take time to replicate those conditions in a laboratory.

So a question to you: when scientists do manage to create basic bacteria from inert materials, will you stop believing in god?

Answer 7

Zeuster2 has aptly demonstrated why no one in the christian community is allowed into scientific debate.
You don't even know the definition of the word "theory" do you moron?
Absolutely pathetic.
And the fact that the education system let you down is NO excuse either. There are books, there are libraries. Go there, Learn for once in your life instead of having ideas spoon-fed to you like some mewling baby.

Answer 8

Not quite, see the answer above using the molecules as an explanation.

I find it much more logical to believe in the scientific theories of life than to simply accept that some high being who just was (and, of course, theists cannot discuss how their higher being came to be) snapped his fingers and made life.

Answer 9

There was an experiment recently in which a man took ordinary everyday dust, sealed it in a jar and exposed it to radiation. Results was the spontaneus generation of amino acids....which ar ethe basic building blocks of all life on earth.


So, what was your question again??
One more point - simply because I do not beleive in a sky pixie has NOTHING to do with evolution. Do you, a theist, really beleive that crap about Noah? Can you explain how 30K species on his ark have somehow managed to EVOLVE into 1.5 MILLION species on earth today??? I didnt think so....

Answer 10

Okay, if you take 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom, you get water correct? We can replicate this process and make water out of these substances. Now, imagine doing this only instead of making water, you are mixing atoms and making a person. It happened for water, it could happen for organisms, which would then evolve/reproduce etc.