If atheists believe humans evolved from a single cell... where did that cell come from?

Question

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola.... 12 fluid ounces."

Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coke can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, it must have a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone.

Answer 1

Lol. That is soooo right! They say that amino acids just somehow got thrown together to make a cell. Psh! No way! do you have any idea how complicated even a single cell is! Its like saying that an artist splattered paint on a thousand different canvasas until accidentally making a copy of the Mona Lisa. Impossible stuff. God is real!

Peace!

Answer 2

The fallacy of your question is that it has a pre-determined end. It is like the old anti-evolution argument that if you threw a bunch of gears into a washing machine and turned it on, it would not produce a pocket watch. Again the fallacy of having a pre-determined output.

You may have heard the fact that if you took an infinite number of monkeys, each with a typewriter (the monkeys simply used as a device to provide truly random keystrokes), and they all typed for eterinity, then these untrained and uneducated monkeys would eventually have typed the entire works of Shakespear, the Constitution of the United States, the Koran, the Bible, and every document ever written. That is just a statistical fact.

But to be more analogous to your question, suppose you had only one million monkeys, each with a typewriter, and they all typed for 1000 years. Statistically speaking, they most certainly will have typed actual words, and even actual sentences and paragraphs by that time. Chances are very high that they will have typed complete documents by then, perhaps the 23rd Psalm, or the lyrics to "Old MacDonald Had a Farm." They might very well have typed the entire Bible, but it is just as likely that they will have typed the entire Koran instead.

The point of all this is, that from all this randomness, complex logical and literary constructions will have come to exist. There is no question about that. One can unequivocally say that this finite randomness will lead to the creation of SOME document.

The fallacy comes when you suggest that this finite randomness will lead to the creation of a SPECIFIC document, such as the Bible or the Constitution. This is what you are doing when you suggest that the randomness of chance cannot lead to a Coke can. It is a fallacy. The randomness COULD lead to a Coke can, or a watch in the washing machine (as referenced above), but the odds are almost infinitely small. Chances are it would lead to something else, most likely just a pile of metal and paint.

Another, bigger fallacy is applying this principle to evolution. No scientist ever said that a bunch of chemicals got randomly thrown together and turned into a human, or even a cell. That is a mischaracterization used by those who believe the Bible rather than science, and who attempt to make others believe the Bible too. If there were such obvious logical fallacies about evolution, fundamentalists wouldn't have to falsify the facts of science to demonstrate them.

Answer 3

I am sorry to say that most of the professed atheists I know either decline to comment on this sort of thing, or rapidly demonstrate that they have not considered the question in any sort of serious light. Some say it has no practical bearing on their lives. Other say life is an illusion, or some such nonsense. Yet others claim that if a Christian can claim that God has existed from all eternity, that he was there before the world was made, and has no maker, than the atheist's claim that the world is self-existent is no less likely.

This, despite the observed fact that it is NOT self-existant, has had a beginning (and presumably, an end), and if it IS all there is, then the likelyhood of rational consciousness arising from random events is nil. Anything produced by random actions or 'forces' or 'laws' is not considered rational, and unfortunately for the determined atheist, that includes the thought that the universe just happens to be what it is now by chance.

Like I said....most of them don't really think it through. The one I did lead through this claimed it was 'Sophistry, pure and simple". If only it were. But it's not. The real world is a very complicated place, practically and philosophically. Trying to live on a fifth-grade notion of the universe requires you, at some point, ignore everything that comes at you from adults.

Answer 4

Currently, that is a gap in our knowledge. However, by the way that science is currently advancing, it is possible that we will have it all figured out in the next few decades.

But, just because we don't know something doesn't automatically make its existence based upon intelligent design. For some odd reason, many people assume that, if there is a gap in scientific knowledge, intelligent design is the default reason. However, this is not true. Just because there are a few gaps in the fossil record, for example, does not mean that evolution is suddenly disproved and intelligent design becomes the truth. The fact that we HAVE fossils as proof of evolution makes intelligent design seem all the less plausible.

Basically, religion views ignorance in a different way than science. Religion revels in mystery, banning people from trying to figure out what exactly happened, while science looks at ignorance and tries its best to figure out how it all happened. That's one of the major differences between religion and science.

As for everyone saying, "Well, ha, this proves intelligent design, and, through that, God's existence," well, now, here's the counter-question:

How did God come to exist?

I think we can all agree that God is even more complex than us, right? I mean, people believe He created life, so, He HAS to be complex.

But, what did HE evolve from?

We have evidence that things evolve to be more complex from smaller things, even if we don't have an explanation for the appearance of life yet. So, it makes sense that God would have to originate from something just as small as the single-celled organisms that appeared on Earth to later created multi-cellular organisms.

Once people can answer that question without saying something like, "Oh, He's just always been there," (since that would then point to Him being intelligently designed by something else) only then might we get somewhere in such arguments. However, until then, scientists will just continue to search for the answers, and religion will stay as it is, close-minded to knowledge and in denial regarding the possibility that intelligent design could very well be labeled "DISPROVEN" soon.

Answer 5

You might want to actually learn about evolution before you try and make clever observations, you'll sound less foolish that way.

Sweetie there were atheists shaking their heads in disgust at religionists long before evolution was discovered.

Atheism involves a lack of belief in gods, not necessarily belief or disbelief in any other thing, it's a big tent. If you knew more about us, but well you don't want to know or learn, only spew bile. I'm wasting my time trying to give an intelligent answer to a question from someone who's living in an "intellectual free zone" state of mind.

A coke can is made of materials that would never normally come into contact with one another the same can not be said of the organic compounds that make up simple living things. Boo-hoo, go gin up another excuse to cling to your self aggrandizing cosmology.

Answer 6

There is a point from where only a merger can provide the information. Experience of dissolution, dissolving of the self. The manifest form the experience as a separate entity itself provides the hurdle to the knowledge.... how to tell the you in your own dream, even by becoming a visitor in that dream that it is a dream, and that the creator of the dream is the ORIGINAL you, and not the 'you' of the dream. An indicative example , no relevance beyond it, to the reality.
Please see where from the idea , the word 'move' came into that last sentence of additional details of the question... ! Can it be that the inner search is looking for a perception beyond sense organs ? Please keep this possibility open , avoiding a blind belief as also a blind disbelief.

Answer 7

On the contrary, the similarities and differences in DNA across species are exactly in accord with evolution. The way protein is coded by DNA, an intelligent designer could have made the DNA of each species entirely different (and encoded the entire Bible into every living cell as an extra bonus). But DNA is not like that. The DNA of closely related species is very similar, and differs only by the minimal number of mutations necessary to create the differences. If species were created, they were created to look exactly as if their DNA had evolved. Currently existing single-celled organisms are the result of billions of years of evolution. They are presumably much more complex and sophisticated than the very first organisms. The first single cell amoeba was simple, and is long extinct.

Answer 8

Love your question ... intelligent and witty when you read it all.

The universe itself, including you, Is Gods mind, but that doesn't mean that evolution isn't real ... It might just be the way He gently creates life, with total freedom for all life to be whatever it or we will become.

God is NOT a puppet master in the sky pulling the strings and manipulating everything ... how boring and petty that would be. He might just give life and allow it to become.

Maybe He lives inside of you now, the basis of your being ... here and now ... maybe He is the ground of all our realities, the real in reality not worried about evolution cause in His eternal time frame evolution is fine.

There is no real conflict between science and true religious understanding ... not even in quantum physics.

I hope you can understand;

With Love ... Jonnie

PS, Copernicus and Galileo both discovered scientific truths that were considered heresy in their day ... "how dare you say that the earth is not the center of all creation" ? Well it's not ... get it ?
PS,PS, I gotta go get a coke now ... see ya later. Email me through Yahoo if you want.

Answer 9

Up to date the only tiny flimsy string that holds creationism from falling into the bucket of ancient superstition is the "spark of life". Your faith seems to be holding from that same string

What separates science from silly made-up explanations is a little concept called "the scientific method".

The "primordial soup" experiments have shown that aminoacids can be created from non-organic compounds. Fossils and vestigial organs have proved there is an evolutionary process.

The spark of life as a natural phenomenon has not been fully reproduced in a lab, that's the main fact that is missing to show that "god" is a human construct.

But maybe that proof should never arrive, otherwise humanity may suddenly find itself without a mass-control mechanism as effective as religion.

You should continue living under that rock, it'll make your life easier to handle.

Answer 10

First. Atheism means that one believes that there is no god. It has nothing to do with the big bang theory. It just means that we believe in science (which also still has yet to legitimately prove any creation theory).

Second. Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps the thought that we are all of us here by accident, that we were created by some one in a million chance, is just too incomprehensible for you?

Third. If you believe that there is a maker for everything, who or what made your god?

Answer 11

Ugh. Another one of those ridiculous "Let's debate our life philosophies in a public forum" people.

As to your question, this is the answer that atheists (including myself) give: You discredit atheistic arguments because "if there is a design, there must be a designer." However, you believe that the designer himself just existed. There was no one that created the Creator, right? This is how atheists feel about the universe. It just existed. No designer.

There. Now, get over it. These arguments are futile and boring.