Does anyone believe in the myth of evolution still?? Or is that just for cults??

Question

Can Life Emerge From Non-Living Matter?

No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory conditions, scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living matter. Life has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.

Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous generation, it's unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic components of life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their spontaneous generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins, amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be oxygen in the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no ozone in the upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can evolution explain both ozone and life?

Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino acids necessary for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously impacts the theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."

The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life presents an interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of genes that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present for DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must be present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain this has never been answered.


How Was the First Living Molecule Formed?

Evolutionists think that the early earth contained a primordial "soup", consisting of all the components necessary for life. Through random processes, the components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes. Let's look at the mathematical chances for life to come about in this way.

Probabilities Show Random Processes Cannot Create Life

The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred".

All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed.


The gray box describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

Insufficient Time For Creation Of Even Simplest Organisms

Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process occurred over billions of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to make all the necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct ones. Let's test this theory for "Fred".

Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a billionth of a second for components to combine to form a trial 100 component "Fred". Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the universe, 1080, is representative of the number of basic components available for trial combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial combinations of 100 component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these assumptions, from the origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial combinations could be made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to get a functioning "Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one of our 10105 combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is approximately one chance in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (1 in 1053). It would take over three billion billion billion billion billion billion billion years to try all the possible combinations to be sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years.

There hasn't been nearly enough time to create even simple "Fred" in the universe's supposed 30,000,000,000 years of existence!

READ before you answer, please.
You always ask for logic and scientific evidence, here it is. Learn something instead of bashing!
Just a suggestion.................

The fact that the universe was created by an explosion implies a Beginner who caused the explosion. Einstein resisted this conclusion and initially tried to hypothesize a new force of physics that would cancel out the deceleration and expansion factors, allowing the universe to be in a static state for an infinite period of time. However, in 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble measured forty different galaxies, proving that the galaxies are expanding away from each other.

As a result of Hubble's findings, Einstein acknowledged "the necessity for a beginning"5 and "the presence of a superior reasoning power"3. He did not accept, however, that the "superior reasoning power" was the God of the Bible.
Einstein was Jewish but had been educated at a Catholic school. When rabbis and priests came to congratulate him on his discovery of God, he replied that he was convinc

Answer 1

nice lesson!

I heard something about the big bang theory and how they think life originated... get this... a couple billion years ago all the matter is the universe compacted into the same spot which is no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then after it compacted, it exploded into a circular pattern with planets being slingshot all over the universe.

bunch of mumbo jumbo if you ask me

Answer 2

Sounds like you want a debate, goody.

I going to start with your first line

“No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or spontaneous generation”

This is just wrong. In 1950 Stanley Miller put an electric charge into what the scientist believe to be the inorganic chemical compounds present when the earth was young. He formed amino acids organic compounds that are the building blocks of life. This experiment has been done many times. The conclusion to be drawn is that under the right conditions it is possible to create inorganic compounds into organic compounds.

This next statement is true as far as I know, “Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins, amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen”.

The next fact is wrong. The earth did not have oxygen in the atmosphere until after life was on the planet. Scientists have found life (bacteria) living on the edge of volcanoes, and in this area the amount of oxygen present is next to nothing. To put this way, if humans didn’t die from the sulfur dioxide (very, very dangerous) or the heat humans would die because they couldn’t breathe. Oxygen probably didn’t become common in the atmosphere until something like algae had evolved.

Right again about the water bit (I think I’ll double check that later) but wrong with the second fact. Geologists make no claims about water at the very start. The hypothesis is that life started in“primordial goo”. I’ll look up the chemical composition later and update this if you would like.

I really do not know enough about DNA, I’ll have to ask my buddy who is a biologist, and knows more about this than I really do. To pick a little point that I do know about you forgot the word combination of DNA. DNA is fairly similar between animals what is different is the combination of the DNA. Yes there are different genes that have mutated over time, but the structure of the DNA is the same.

I have a feeling that you are just going to chuck the next argument out of the window but it is valid.

Your statistical analysis is off. While most scientists agree that it is highly improbably for life to develop, attempting to measures how unlikely is pretty hard stuff as well. I work and live with statistics and I can tell you how hard it is to figure something simple like, “How many Homeless people live on the streets in Montreal?” And to figure the probability that you or I will end up bumming for change.

That being said, the law of large numbers states that if you run something enough times it will happen. Look at how big our galaxy is, how many planets we know off (9 or 8 in our solar system and another 200 or so that we have seen orbiting other stars. So there are many planets and if life could evolve it would have some where at some time. I feel pretty lucky that it did here, and we could banter over this topic.

NASA states that the universe is younger than what you wrote. 14.5 billion years, almost half of what you wrote down.

Evolution is not blind chance like many people believe it is responsive to the environment. Look at dog breeding and the amount of changes that are possible to dogs in a few generations. For a more natural explanation I was listening to the radio to a story about crickets in Hawaii, which stopped making those noises in less than 30 years. The noisy ones were all eaten the quite ones were able to reproduce. Natural selection.
Evolution is not blind chance it is heavily influenced by the environment.

Thanks, my brain hurts now. Well I was always told that it was good to think once and a while.

Edit: What does the god hypothesis give us to test? Yes having god start the universe is a valid hypothesis, but does it enhance our understanding of the world outside of faith. I not knocking faith here, science is concerned with explaining the facts and the god hypothesis has yet to yield anything we can test, so I will put it in the same field as string theory. String theory has a nice answer to this but at the moment save for the complicated math it is just an idea and shouldn’t even be called a theory. It should be the string hypothesis and the god hypothesis.

Answer 3

ok if no one has ever seen the begining of life from evolution then can you prove the exsistance of a GOD i believe the answer would be NO because he is just a believe that a group of people started to think about when the times got a little rough. Plus the fact that they have found in some areas of the world where the conditions where right and saw some of what they believed to be the first microbes in pools in places like England. And if you want to be that anal about something please for the sake of your kids pull your head out of your ***. Your religon has only been around 2,000 years or so and civilization has been around alot longer then that what do you think wins.

Answer 4

Does anyone still believe in the myth of religions? Isn't that how Christianity started? As a cult?

I'm sorry, I don't think I've ever read DNA, protein, amino acids, all that "sciency" stuff in the bible. So you're telling me that in his boredom, God created the world, the universe. He is such a perfectionist that he even made sure that we were made up of amino acids and proteins, DNA, all that good stuff that makes us us. Geez, that's one helluva God. Evolution, while not perfect, does a better job in trying to explain who we are and where we came from.

Answer 5

What's a cult?

Just kidding, I know what a cult is. In light of the way you phrased this question, I agree with the guy who said, "This isnt so much a question as a way of taking a shot at people who believe in the theory of evolution."

Answer 6

i liked your question. please make them shorter though, i got board. bust really it was good and well worded with some good points. so here is a very brief answer to 3 sections of your "question"

big bang -- matter and anti-matter spontaneously generate all the time, its been observed in labs, and can be duplicated, there is even anti-matter production underway for new NASA JPL research. this same process can create something from nothing by creating the opposite of it some were else: like 0 is nothing, as is 1 and -1, just keep them separate and they will both exist as something. the big bang works in a similar way, and thus nothing makes something... and an equal but opposite something somewere else.

life from nothing -- self replicating molecules are noth that amazing, a self replicating amino acid is not a far stretch, and from there protein would follow. there is still much research to be done, but the logic is all there.

probability stuff: -- given the amount of planets out there, even with the numbers you presented, its it probable that trillions of intelligent lifeforms have evolved. there is a galaxy for every grain of sand in the world, and as many stars in each. the numbers are to great to comprehend, your probabilistic approach doesn't apply. although the chance of life generating on a planet is small, multiplying by the number of planets and it becomes huge.

Answer 7

Just stop reading the propaganda and pick up a biology text book. The Miller Experiments, set in conditions like earth, could of created molecules that could of created spontaneous life forms. The only problem is proving the atmosphere of the earth then. Now with the numbers you used its for the information we have NOW. Advances will probably show us some unknown coefficient that is overlooked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Current_models

Also from wikipedia:
The law of biogenesis is rejected as being a false absolute. Since life itself is poorly defined, there is no acceptable scientific consensus on how it must "always" come about. In a real sense, there is always integration of "non-living" substances into living beings; this occurrence does not require "agency" of life, since much of the integration occurs by the laws of chemistry which are completely independent from the definition of life.

hehehe..i found your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_biology

Answer 8

The slow, stepwise process of prebiotic synthesis and the all-at-once process of spontaneous generation are not comparable.

RNA sequences are capable of forming and replicating without the assistance of proteins. These RNA sequences may also catalyze protein formation.

The two main flaws with this factoring argument are that (1) enzymes of many different configurations can have identical or very similar effects (we do not need to form any particular enzyme), and that (2) enzymes in prebiotic situations are not the product of haphazard collisions of compounds, but are gradually built up over time by selective forces, and sometimes created in the first place by nonrandom processes.

Answer 9

They've just found a meteorite with signs of life on it in the high arctic, so I guess that proves that life came from outer space, not your God. Now what does lifeon other planets do to your theory that God created this one? Nooned witnessed spontaneous human combustion either, but for some reason most of you thick born again idiots think that's possible. And you know, you will always be ableto findsome person claiming to be a scientist who will back your claim to 5000 years, but then, anyone can buy a diploma off the internet for$150

Answer 10

I see your logic and I see your math:
YOU Said:

"Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old, which is 1018 seconds. " Don't you mean something like 10 to the 18th power (seconds or whatever)?

PS: Nasa and most all astonomers now agree that the Universe is 13.7 Billion years old.

The latest science believes that our planet could not have evolved on it own. They have concluded that we had to be seeded by something or someone outside our Solar system.

The great seeding occurred 550 million years ago. The fossil records call it an explosion of life on Earth. - There is your window. Now, if God is eternal, then he could have seeded us 550 million years ago, and still have visited our hominids, his hominids, and mutated one of them with abstract reasoning and a soul, and free will.) Just a hint on How the Bible could be accurate but in Moses' terminology.

Answer 11

And there was a time when people didn't understand electricity....maybe we just aren't smart enough to figure it all out yet. To throw out the theory of evolution and how it describes the changes life creates to deal with environment is absurd. You take facts and still end up with ignorance.