Would all the atheist please give us some proof to explain how life began. How did inorganic become organic?

Question

Since you have ZERO proof to support your belief, why can't you just admit that you have FAITH. Your FAITH is placed in yourselves and other people. You trust them to have the right answers, which you really don't understand well enough to critique. So you are trusting them with your eternity. WOW!!! You guys really have a lot of FAITH.

watty : my point is to show that neither is proved. Both are based on that which has been observed or experienced. My faith is not blind as I once shared your belief.


Two eighty eight--- maybe you should answer the question instead of dodging it before you claim to have " shot it down" Can you say "Cop out"

I don't know and little flower--- I guess you couldn't answer so you attempt to divert the question. Why can't you just answer?

kichka--- maybe you should read my question again. I didn't say that you had no faith. quite the opposite. Your faith is in mankind to know.

My point is to show that both require faith, I freely admit that my beliefs do. But too many atheist and evolutionist act as if their beliefs are well established facts that should not be questioned. They don't like their faith to be questioned.

Thin Kaboudit---- thanks for your reply could you please provide a source.

Green Meklar---- Thanks for your reply. My point is that unless we can verify those chemical reactions, then we are making an assumption. It may be an educated guess but it is still just a guess. Both the theistic and atheistc opinions require faith. Neither should be ridiculed for being based on that faith.

Answer 1

http://www.thelogiccourse.com/bluestorm/

...developed just for you!

Answer 2

I am a chemist by training and a software professional by profession. Never in my life in the lab did anything occur by chance. How many times I wished it had! Hoe many times I wished the code would write itself!

It requires a lot more faith to believe an evolution theory. But the fact is nothing comes from nothing. There has to be a first cause. Mutations have been observed scientifically and not evolution. No scientist has ever observed any evolution on a micro or even on a nano scale nor can they reasonably explain the basic theory of evolution without proposing another theory to cover one hole opening up a bigger hole and discrediing their own scientific methods and credibility.

So what do they do. They call people hypocrites (user - I don't know) or stupid (user - Track) and make a scientific statements (sic) (like user two_eighty_eight or green_meklar) with no facts to support it.

Answer 3

Technically, organic substances are any compounds the molecules of which contain carbon. This carbon would have been formed billions of years ago inside stars (probably massive ones, a good deal larger than the Sun).

I think the question you're probably trying to ask is how life arose from nonliving material. First, I would suggest not getting it into your head that the first life had to be complex. Rabbits and lizards and even bacteria don't just spontaneously pop into existence. The first life was probably extremely simple by our standards, about equivelant to a prion (a prion is the simplest known organic life form, a single protein molecule that has the ability to change other protein molecules into more prions), if not even simpler. It would have been made through some chemical reaction between complex but nonliving organic molecules; given that chemical reactions are quite commonplace even in places without life forms, the vast size of the Earth and the hundreds of millions of years it had over which to occur, this would have been quite likely to happen eventually. After that it reproduced and evolved and reproduced and evolved and so on for 3700000000 years.

Answer 4

How do you belive that some great god sits up in heaven and decides to create life? I mean, no offense, people can belive what they want. But religion was 'created' to give people something to belive in. as to your question....


The beginning of the universe, as it is understood by present-day physics, is the Big Bang. That is to say the entire world was compressed into a tiny microscopic ball which exploded. The enormous amount of energy which was released in the explosion created all the galaxies including our own solar system. The great achievement of physics is that its laws describe the development of the universe beginning with that tiny ball which expanded to reach the present dimensions of the universe. Immediately following the Big Bang there existed only elementary particles (such as protons, neutrons, electrons etc.) and nuclear reactions which occurred at temperatures of billions of degrees. Only a moment later, with the expansion of the universe, the temperature descended to one hundred million degrees and from then on the elementary particles began to create nuclei and nuclear physics began. As the universe continued to expand and the temperature dropped to tens of thousands of degrees, the atoms so clearly described by "atomic physics" were created. As temperatures sunk below the level of 2000 degrees, molecules and the first chemical compounds came into being. At a level of below 100 degrees centigrade, the molecules of water were created, the earth became solid, and bio-chemistry and biology were born.
The cosmic radiation in the universe at the time of the solidification of the Earth would have broken down all chemical compounds. Therefore, chemistry could only be created in an area protected against radiation, that is, the sea. We can thus also understand why marine life predated life on dry land, which could only come into existence at a later period after a significant further drop in the temperature of the universe. Parenthetically, even today there exist weak remnants of that same cosmic radiation created in the Big Bang. These were measured by Paznias and Wilson who won the 1978 Nobel Prize for the most revolutionary discovery of this century: the measurement of the creation of the world. What, then, is the source of life? Two extremely conflicting approaches deal with the question. Professor Krick, (the discoverer of DNA -- the discovery of the century in biology) says: "the source of life is almost like a miracle. So many conditions have to exist in order to begin it ...". On the other hand, Prof. Miller says: "I think that we haven't learned the right trick. When we find the answer we will see that it is so simple we'll say -- how come we didn't think of that before ..?"

Answer 5

"Inorganic" has been turned into "organic" numerous times in experiments in the lab involving a mixture of low mass number elements in a closed vessel using high voltage discharge to simulate lightning. It's actually quite easy to synthesize some of the smaller hydrocarbons, and this can even be done in a High School lab.

I would contend it takes more faith to conclude that the particular religion you follow (out of the 30,000 or so practiced around the world) is, beyond a doubt, the only "true" religion. Science is universal. Your faith is purely a product of where you happened to be born and how you were raised.

Answer 6

Wrong. I don't have faith. I JUST DON'T KNOW. And that's okay with me. I don't know how the inorganic became organic - no one knows, because WE WEREN'T THERE. I will say that having studied organic chemistry, the only thing necessary for organic life is carbon, which is inorganic in itself. When carbon bonds with other atoms, it creates things like sugar, amino acids, carbs, and all the things necessary for life.

I don't trust science any more than I trust religion. I don't believe that anyone knows the answers. And I think it's very irresponsible of anyone to claim that they know. Faith is intellectually irresponsible.

Answer 7

I don't think this is a question, but an attack. Because of that, you are not deserving of the truth, and you don't want an answer. This is showing you are insecure in your beliefs.

Well let me ask this. Where did god come from? Oh...now you have no answer. You are mad about this, so you are trying to convince yourself everyone else is wrong to make your beliefs seem more possible.

Answer 8

I have faith that our god started life, but he did it in a way that science can recreate and it would appear to be completely random.

Get some toothpicks and drop them in a pile on the floor. I bet you'll see one english letter formed by the toothpicks in the middle of the pile.

This is the manner god created life, but for our god it's not a roll of the dice, it's what our god meant to do.

Our god started existance, the big bang, by initiating a change within itself. As the particles of our god swirled into an ever expanding dimension, many of those particles slammed into each other, some combining into different materials and some just expanding into other dimensions.

Aeons later as some of those materials cooled, many other random impacts brought together elements that collected in liquid pools on planetary surfaces, and those random impacts generated energy. This energy polarized and exchanged between the dense and less dense materials on the planets surfaces, striking a collection of sugar nitrogen and phosphates, while they were in close proximity, and they began to collect other elements. This collection of elements began to seek out other elements, and thus life was born.

Our god works through evolution, it does not prove a god does not exist, it proves that our god was much more aware of the future than we are, and was willing to give of itself for us to come into existance.

As a matter of fact, you can recreate the elementary conditions for life and create your own elementary life, but it'll be a few billion years before it sits up and talks to you. Our god must be very patient.

Our god created time, which is why our god is eternal, no one can go back and create a god because our god was there before time existed.

A model of the universe shows that after the big bang comes the big crunch, much like a neuron firing in a human brain, so I like to fantasize that we are in fact a part of our gods dream, waiting to be realized when we achieve enough intelligence to be more than just our gods children.

I think every religion is good in that it brings people to understand that there is a god, and that it's important to be a good person, and to treat others in good ways that you would want to be treated, but the religions tend to spurn you if you keep asking questions when they don't want you to know the answers, and encourage ignorance. I don't think our god wants us to be ignorant, so I do not follow man made religions.

EDIT:
We *have* verified those chemical reactions. There are still places where those chemicals are evolving to this day, and we have verified that it is life from inorganic material, but we have not been able to watch it from beginning to end because we don't have billions of years to watch the evolution. Our god works through evolution, and we can see impacts of evolution within a 10 year period span, such as the very island where Darwin's theory was based upon today, it sports a different population of birds because one evolved to be the more dominant because of the food supply and terrain. I myself have seen the ingredients of life become life, and know this to be a fact.

Answer 9

it somewhat is packed with fallacies. i'm approximately completed with those questions as you're continuously spouting dribble you needless to say don't comprehend your self. we've naturalistic factors for a manner DNA might have developed. no possible say for constructive yet we do have some helping information for hypotheses. None yet for a deity. no possible disprove that magical fairies who stay in yet another length did no longer create our universe and existence in a lab twist of destiny. yet in gentle of no information for the assumption we don't think of we would desire to continuously disprove it is the way it occurred or assume it is the way it did because of the fact we will not. the same is going for the god thought. you're misquoting Occam's Razor because it applies to technology, i don't comprehend the place you acquire that definition of it even though it sounds greater like a non secular or philosophical version. In scientific application it truthfully says that each and one and all factors being equivalent the better or greater parsimonious one is frequently maximum remarkable or maximum achieveable. a good greater complicated then the universe great being that in basic terms continuously existed is not greater in retaining with Occam's Razor in that context.

Answer 10

Here's some scientific (that means factual, and not from some fairy-tale book) proof. Life started on earth when it was still a molten rock with the ameoba (sp?). Over millions of years, evolution made life into different forms, but it all started with the ameoba. Thanks for the two points. Next christian question to shoot down.

Answer 11

Just as well, can you give us any verifiable proof that your explanation is correct? You can't! You have ZERO proof to support your belief so why would you believe it?
Appeals to ignorance work both way...though in neither instance do they help anyone come closer to the truth, just closer to ignorance.