Evolutionists: Why have evolutionists failed to prove that a single cell can be created from inanimate object?

Question

Well, the whole idea is, if there isn't a Creator who has created everything, then how did the first living thing came into being? Obviously, evolutionists won't say that the first living thing was created. What the explanation then?

If you say that the first living thing just came into being by chance, WHY science has failed to produce just ONE cell from an inanimate object?

Jim_Darwin, that IS the point, science hasn't been able to do it, and I don't see it happening either. It simply imples that there is a Creator who created everything, God.

cedykeman1, son, this is the problem, why have evolutionists backed off, don't you see what evolution used to be and what it is now? Why change? Because they know it can't be proved, so they would just go ranting about "mutation" which again, if there was such a mutation why aren't there loads of fossils to prove this, why are n't there loads of transitional fossils which show the how living beings were mutated.

mathematician, same question, why definition of evolution was changed overtime and instead of considering "evolving" now they consider "mutating", ain't this deception. Even if you consider mutation, where the heck are the fossils for those transitory oraganisms, why aren't they found in large numbers if there was mutation?

masonjarred. don't try to avert the question, you are completely unaware of the fact that what evolution used to be and what it is now, the definition has been changed because of the sole reason that they can't explain how a single cell came into being from inanimate matter.

Secondly, you have done a very unfair comparison, because gravity is something we can prove. If one says gravity doesn't exist, just ask them to go to the top of a roof, jump down and defy gravity.

On the other hand, cell, a SINGLE cell, is nothing considering the advances in biology today.

NickF, you trapped yourself, if a cell requires millions of years to create, then why aren't more cells being created today from inanimate matter, why is there not such an instance, considering that the first cell was produced after millions of years, why stop after the first cell, was that coincidental, why not continue and create more cells, after all just after the first cell was created, millions of years have passed, why no more new cells from inanimate objects and a new chain of species?

What scientific evidence is there that the first cell took 2-500 million years except conjecture?

cedykeman, show me actual pictures of atleast 100 different such fossils. Give me a link, or tell me the name of the museum which has them.

masonjarr, and by the way gravity can easily be created and has been created. Looks like you never studied physics!

NickF, you sound so foolish, if it was the case, then your so called evolutionists would have found it. Looks like you never studies probability, you are pushnig yourself into a realm of possibility which is far less likely. I know what kidn you are.

Answer 1

You forget to realize is that evolution doesn't just happen over night...and for it to become a cell you need time. It didn't just happen by chance and evolutionists who know what they are talking about don't believe that it was just an accident. How crazy does evolution sound compared to some Mythological god Creating humans out of Dust, putting them in a garden with a magical tree that if you eat from it you gain knowledge..and that knowledge condems all humanity...then God Sends his only son...who is actually god Incarnate to die on the cross to fix a mistake that God made in the first place...hmmmm I will go with the Scientific Explanation thank you

Answer 2

Idiotic question. Because science hasn't reached that level yet.

Here's a shocker...

Science is NEW. We HAVEN'T reached the pinacle of all scientific understanding and we're learning new things every day. Just because we haven't discovered how the universe was created doesn't mean we won't. It just means that human beings don't yet have the technology.

Put it this way...

At the beginning of the century, computers were not even thought of as possible. Nor was long distance communication around the world within seconds.

The first computer was created in 1941, in Germany by Konrad Zuse. It was good for only simple arithmatic and all "programs" had to be punched into card and inserted into the computer in order for the computer to do the calculations. But it was a primitive computer non-the-less.

There then came the tube driven computers in the 50's that took up whole rooms.

In the 60's, the tubes were replaced by transistors, making them smaller and faster.

The 70's saw the first personal computers when the transistors were replaced by integrated circuits.

It's evolved since then and you now have a computer small enough to fit in the palm of your hand. Heck, my friend has a digital camera thats the size of a credit card.

So, at the beginning of the century, the technology wasn't even thought of. In fact, it's quite possible that some could have called it the creation of the devil. Yet, today, you can talk to anyone around the world in the matter of milliseconds by the internet.

Does that mean computers were an impossible creation? No, of course not, or you wouldn't be on here right now.

So... just because we don't know something NOW doesn't mean we won't know it LATER.

That does not disprove evolution. Nor does it prove god. What it does say is that we don't know right now. So what? The nature of the evolution of technological discovery says that we will discover.

It's the same reason that a cure for AIDS has not yet been found. It's the same reason a fetus can't live outside the mothers body before the developmental age of four months without the aid of technology. It's the same reason we don't yet have laser guns. It's the same reason we don't yet have fusion instead of nuclear/gas/coal/oil power.

Because we don't yet know. But scientists are working on it.

I really wish closed minded Christians could get that through their thick skulls.

Answer 3

Evolutionists don't need to prove that a single cell can be created from an inanimate object. Evolutionists don't try to prove that a single cell can be created from an inanimate object.
You seem to be trying to force Evolutionists into a corner here. You seem to be deliberately trying to mislead others that that is what Evolutionists do. Either that or you have been mislead as to what Evolutionists do.
If you are picturing some guys in white coats zapping (your) inanimate object with electricity cursing when it stubbornly refuses to spring to life then you have an unrealistic view of science.
There are plenty of sites on the web that will explain to you what scientists ARE doing... I defy you to find one which shows some failed life creation experiment.
In the Book of Genesis, it was God doing the creating of Adam from dirt or mud or clay. The science of evolution has nothing to say on this subject.
Magical solutions to questions of life are a dime a dozen, you have pared your solution down to one. And you have pitted that against the Natural Sciences, not the other way around.
At least stop accusing Evolution of things outside its domain.
This should be a candidate for best answer because it answers your question. You are probably looking for something more like just agreeing with you.

Answer 4

You misunderstand what evolution is about. Evolution is a description of how living things change over time. It is *not* about how life got started. That is the realm of abiogenesis.

As to why no single cell has been created out of nothing in the lab: the main thing is that we simply don't understand the processes that led to the first cells. We don't know if they happened at hydrothermal vents, or in small ponds. We know a fair amount about the composition of the early earth and know it was quite different than it is today. Recreating the specifics is not easy either. Finally, please realize that the first cell probably took about 2-500 million years to develop after the earth cooled down enought o have liquid water. Do you really expect us to get it done in 50 years??

Answer 5

well... "evolution" has never said that a living cell ever derived from an "inanimate" object", all evolution says is that a species can change over time making a new form of species...

you have to have a thorough look at both sides of the playing field (in this case evolution vs creationism) before you can make up your mind.

you also have to consider the evidence that the sceintific community has made such as:

1. a whale skeleton with a pelvis
why would a whale need a pelvis if it doesnt have legs? unless at one point in time it walked on land

2. coccyx (tail bone) on humans
why would a modern day humans need this now vistigual bone unless at one point in time we had tales (like a primeaple maybe?)

3. homogonouse bone structures in different species of animals
why would different animals have the same bone structure?

ther are many more but those are the only ones i can remmember off the top of my head.

personally, i believe both in creationism and evolution.

change is the only deffinant constant in this universe, so why wouldnt god give us the ability to adapt to our ever changing enviornment?

Answer 6

What a strange question. You seem to be saying that if humans can't do it, then your god did it. Aside from the humorous implications of that statement, what does it have to do with evolution? Did someone tell you the truth evolution somehow depends on whether scientists can "create life?" Isn't that a little like asking a scientist to create gravity so you'll believe it's a real force?

Answer 7

Why are you so lacking in morals to pretend that evolution says anything about how life started???

You are a very bad ambassador for your religion.

PS. The fossil record of something like 250,000 known species shows almost nothing but "transitional forms". You have been lied to. Another example of which is that the theory hasn't been changed!!! Disgusting.

Answer 8

It's a matter of scale. If you give me an unlimited budget and a laboratory the size of the primodial oceans, I can probably throw together somthing that qualifies as life in 5,000 years instead of the 500,000,000 years. I also haven't created a star even though I know how much hydrogen I'd need.

Answer 9

why do you assume a process that took millions of years can easily be modeled in a lab? I'm sure scientists could create simple cells from basic compounds if they had an environment like the early ocean and millions of years to wait...


not exactly true "cognio sum" something cell like will in fact form, phospholipids will self-organize themselves into cell like structures in an aquatic environment, no help needed

added: in reponse to your reply, why do you assume that new cells aren't constantly being created from "inanimate" matter?

Answer 10

Idiotic statements like yours are the reason people like you are made fun of.

Try learning the theory of evolution before spouting off a ridiculous question.

o.k. here goes--- there are millions of fossils that back up evolution. Did you bother to ask that question? No you didn't!

Evolution is one of the most filled out, damm near hole free theories there is in science. You made the assumption that there is no "stepping stones" that simply is not true! WE have museums just full of them.

o.k. here you go
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat04.html