Atheists answer: Please explain the origin of the Universe...of Life...?

Question

Please, please, please, please read before answering.

Can the Theory of Evolution really explain the origins of the Universe? To put it simply, the Theory of Evolution states that life evolved from a previous existing entity (that life derives from an existing life form). My question is, if life came from the previous life form, then where did the FIRST LIFE FORM come from that generated the on going evolution continum? Ok, say life originated from single cells, but how were those cells created? You might say that it was created by the millions of fusion reaction of atoms to create a complex system to from a simple living cell, but where did the atoms originate from and what came before that? The evolution theory fails to explain the most crucial aspect of existence: the ORIGIN of existence. There had to be an IINITIATION point like all things in life. Like the saying goes: cause and effect. Then what gave the initiation of the start of the universe?

Elphaba: What do YOU mean by ASSUMING every atheist are scientists!?? Either you know the answer or you don't! From the looks of your answer, I see that your very fustrated by it because you don't know the answer. I highly doubt that even a scientist canaswer that.

ahnamaree: Like alphaba, you are all so very fustrated because you can't answer the question. Just because I posed a simple question that boggles the minds of six years old does not make me a religous-Nazi or whatever you said. Your response just tells me that you can't handle the truth.

NH Baritone: Tell me something I don't know. But thanks for the review for my next Grade 12 Biology test on DNA! And, by the way, you still didn't answer my question: What is the ORIGIN of the universe, in other words, what came BEFORE RNA, DNA, PROTEINS..... ect...?

Ballet: You didn't answer my questiong. I'm not asking about Adam and Eve; I'm asking: What is the START of the universe?

Stop going out of track people!

Mr. Sabetudo: You're correct in saying that "the human brain will never be able to grasp the ultimate source of everything... the cause of God.." And that's exactly why GOD warned us in advance if humans try discover GOD's ORIGION, then we'll go insane because GOD hasn't given us the capacity to even concieve such possibility. Our intelligence is too insignificant to grasp the notion as this.

Alucard: Then what do YOU claim this to be? That the universe was already here?!! Don't be a cheapskate and give me an easy answer like some of you did.

Answer 1

As many people have responded here, Darwin's Theory of Evolution doesn't actually attempt to explain the Origin of Life, just the Origin of Species. Darwin's theory provides an explanation for the diversity of species living on this planet right now.

What other answers here seem to avoid is the actual theories describing the origin of life (I know you used "existence" rather than "life" in your question, but we're not to that point yet). There are currently a few theories that try to explain how life originated on Earth.

There are some who hypothesize that life actually originated elsewhere and was transported to the surface of the Earth via some meteorite crashing through the ancient atmosphere. This theory merely avoids the issue of how life started.

The theory that I find the most plausible is that of life originating in a primordial soup. This "soup" was probably comprised of Methane, Water, Ammonia, Carbon Dioxide, and other basic molecular compounds. Then with a combination of heat and electricity (probably lightning), new compounds formed that had and basic and replicable RNA combination. The RNA proteins were then able to replicate themselves, and through random mutations began the process of diversification of species.

Now, you seem to not make a distinction between the origin of life and the origin of existence. As far as the origin of existence goes, there have been a lot of data found to support the theory of the big bang as the origin of the universe approximately 13.7 billion years ago. All of the matter that exists in the universe today was condensed into an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity. All of the matter then exploded outwards in a period of super expansion, and the universe is still expanding as a result. Now physics does a wonderful job of explaining all of these events back up until 10^-43 seconds following the big bang itself. Before that, all divisions of physics that we currently have break down.

So here we have our introduction of the mystery that Science cannot explain. Do we chalk this up to the divine? Is it the Prime Mover that caused this to happen? Or do we simply not yet have sophisticated enough science to describe what happened?

In doing my own recreational research, I have not found a theory to explain WHERE all of this matter came from initially. This is the place where I bring divinity into play. But that's my decision.

Answer 2

>Atheist Nightmare: Why can't atheist explain the origin of life properly? What do you mean by 'can't explain it properly'? The reason we atheists can't say exactly how life on Earth originated is because it happened about 3.8 billion years ago and we weren't around back then to observe it and see how it happened. Asking an atheist to describe exactly how life started is kind of like asking a christian to describe exactly how Noah's Ark was built. Also, on a side note, why can't christian use the plural of the word 'atheist' properly? >Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells. Yes, but bacteria, animals, plants and people aren't the only life forms on Earth. There are a number of other kingdoms of cellular life you didn't mention, and furthermore there are life forms such as viruses and prions which do NOT have cells. >This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. Ah, the good old irreducible complexity argument. Too bad it doesn't work. In my experience, creationist claims of irreducible complexity all base themselves on the assumption that more advanced, more dependent traits cannot replace more primitive, more independent ones. However, nothing in evolutionary theory suggests that this assumption is warranted. >For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already Yep. All this means, though, is that one or the other of the two sides has replaced a more primitive kind of chemistry that served a similar purpose. Consider this analogy. Let's say I have a computer that has a PS/2 port with a mouse connected to it. I go out and buy some USB connectors and attach them to my computer. Then I go out and buy a USB mouse and plug that into the USB connectors, and throw away the PS/2 mouse. Then I remove the PS/2 connector on the back of the computer case. I now have a computer which has a USB mouse connected to a USB port and no PS/2 port. The mouse can't run with a PS/2 port, and the computer can't be used without the mouse, so I must necessarily have bought both the computer (with the USB connectors) and the mouse all at once. Right? Wrong. The reason it looks that way is because I've gotten rid of the old PS/2 mouse and PS/2 connector that I didn't need anymore. As I described above, I CAN actually convert the original computer with a PS/2 mouse and connector to a computer with only a USB mouse and connector. Just because the USB ports and the USB mouse are both necessary to use the computer does NOT mean that I must have bought them both at the same time. And life forms are the same way: They LOOK irreducibly complex because they have several interdependent parts, but that's only because the earlier parts that WEREN'T interdependent got replaced by the more efficient interdependent ones. These interdependent parts did NOT need to come into existence all at the same time. >To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences. So what? Evolution doesn't really care whether the mutations tend to be harmful or not. If a cell undergoes a mutation that is horribly bad for it, then that cell dies, and all the other ones without the mutation go on living and reproducing. This continues until one of the cells happens to get a good mutation, whereupon it reproduces faster and replaces all the other cells with cells of its own type. The chances of a mutation being harmful could be a million to one, and in a sufficiently large population of cells, evolution would still occur.

Answer 3

1. Evolutionary Theory does not extend any farther than the origin of Biodiversity. It's like expecting Germ Theory to answer the existence of the universe...

2. For the existence of the universe, the problem comes from the simple fact that temporality, spatiality and matter/energy were generated by the singularity and "big bang" event. To pose the question "what caused the big bang is inherently contradictory, because cause and affect require the existence of temporality (time) in order to exist, which was created by the singularity.

From this simple information that there can be no cause for the beginning of the universe, or at least the cause is in no sense that works by the laws we can perceive.

Without extra information to prove the existence of "other laws" I assume the current laws universally apply by reasonable basis and conclude that the existence (pre time, space and matter/enegry) has always existed.

Simple as that.

Answer 4

First of all, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Atheists or anybody else cannot possibly have the final explanation of the origin of the universe.
People adopt imaginary unproven theories about the primordial source of the Universe and, obviously, the easiest and simplest of all is God. However, it is an idea that can never be proven, even though is is the simplest and most satisfying if you don't want to bother with observed facts.
If there is cause and effect in everything, we have to figure the cause of God. Also, the cause of his cause.
We believe that the human brain will never be able to grasp the ultimate source of everything. We believe, however, that the human brain can come up with pretty good theories.
If we can believe in a God without cause, why not an universe without cause? Maybe God is the universe itself.

Answer 5

What is your logic? If God exists, then why wouldn't he give us simple proof of his existence instead of condemning people to Hell? It's rather convenient to just say that God has not given us the capacity to comprehend his origin; that's just another way of avoiding the question, similarly to how these Atheists supposedly are. It's also convenient to believe that there is a nice, cozy Heaven waiting for us when we die. However, that doesn't make it true. There is proof of dinosaurs and Precambrian organisms. It's amazing to see how far science has come since 4.6 billion years ago. It's easy to say that God created the universe, because people feel that they HAVE to know everything, when such a feat is impossible for them. I can just as easily say that the initiation of the universe was a hot and extremely dense state that proceeded to cause the Big Bang.

Answer 6

"Please, please, please, please read before answering.

Can the Theory of Evolution really explain the origins of the Universe?"

Oh for ****'s sake. NO!

"To put it simply, the Theory of Evolution states that life evolved from a previous existing entity (that life derives from an existing life form). "

Uh... Sort of. But "entity" sounds like a ghost or a god or something.


"My question is, if life came from the previous life form, then where did the FIRST LIFE FORM come from that generated the on going evolution continum? "

Abiogenesis.

"Ok, say life originated from single cells, but how were those cells created?"

Abiogenesis.

" You might say that it was created by the millions of fusion reaction of atoms to create a complex system to from a simple living cell,"

Uh... No, abiogenesis mostly involves chemicals.

" but where did the atoms originate from and what came before that? "

I'm starting to lose count of the number of fields of Science you're mixing up. At the moment it's 3 or 4, I think.

"The evolution theory fails to explain the most crucial aspect of existence: the ORIGIN of existence."

And the Doppler effect fails to explain where babies come from.

"There had to be an IINITIATION point like all things in life. Like the saying goes: cause and effect. Then what gave the initiation of the start of the universe?"

That's the Big Bang you idiot!

Answer 7

I am agnostic myself but I would still like to answer your question, as I think it is well written and addresses a valid point that can be debated. The way I see it is evolution doesnt really claim to be able to explain how all life started, it is a theory that has much scientific proof to support many branches of it. But like all aspects of scientific study there are still unanswered questions and missing pieces of the whole... we know evolution occurs and we can guess how it started, but we have no evidence or proof of what actually happened until those evidences are found we have to fill in the blanks with plausible theories to continue to search for the truth. The big bang or creation doesnt matter neither of them has indisputable evidence supporting the event, scientific or otherwise. Evolutionary theory doesnt claim to know anything it cannot support with evidence, but in order for us to try and determine if the unanswered questions can be resolved we have to develop hypothesis in order to form a basis of reference - we need to guess what to look for since we really have no idea how anything was first created... we have learned only how life has progressed after whatever-beginning-creation-event that first formed our planet and solar system and we dont know whether or not our planet was created at the same time as the universe or after... we dont even know the full size or dimension of our universe. How can we possibly know how it all started or if indeed it is beyond our comprehension having no beginning and no end.... I find it strange to suppose we can define something we know so little about, there is no reason to suppose that it would have an "initiation point" as you put it. In fact the inability to explain or understand where everything came from was the basis of the formation of religion AND science people needed to feel they knew how everything began and what its purpose was. The only difference is science theorizes and tries to discover how things began, while religion claims to know and explain all. Humans seem to think in inherently linear terms, and it may be that not everything follows a linear path, not everything can be explained, understood or discovered. Instead of claiming we know how, when, why everything began and if there is a creator-who started it and who designed it, when we have absolutely no evidence of anything..... Its more important that we admit we do not know and accept our ignorance so that we may continue to question, learn and seek for the truth about our origins, the origin of the universe, and if indeed there was a being who initiated it. No one can claim to know without a doubt how everything began or how it began because none of us was there, anyone who claims they know how it all began is a charlatan because there is no proof. People spend too much time trying to convince each other about what they "believe" started it all(creation, big bang etc), when they should be searching for evidence of the truth through imagination, curiosity, intellectual inqiry and scientific study.
I am not religious nor am I athiest(believe in no god) because by my very nature I refuse to claim I know something and believe it is true when there is no evidence for or against it. I admit my ignorance, I do not know if there is or is not a god, but my common sense tells me not to discount the possibility and to continue to question everything in pursuit of the evidence of truth. As such the only thing I believe is that no one has true knowledge of what started it all or if anything even had a start... but our responsibility is to seek out that knowledge so we can eventually understand.

Answer 8

You just asked about 40 college credits worth..

Time is tied in, so there really isn't a before the big bang. Best Evidence: You can hear echoes of it, and this was predicted before the instruments existed that could detect it: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4655517
Try reading Hawking to get a lot better idea.

There are things that are debatable rather they are alive or not. They are called viruses. We know a big chunk of the chemistry and other things, but the answer is we don't know.

Science does not have all the answers. If we did, there wouldn't be any research going on. The fact that we can't explain everything is not evidence of god at all. Saying god did it only moves those same questions back a step because the same questions apply to god

Answer 9

That is an impossible question for ANYONE to answer. Although I'm not Atheist, at least I know that not all people of Atheism believe in the ToE. Please stop trying to force answers from people in order to prove your point; it only makes you look like an ignorant religi-Nazi.

EDIT: Hmm, considering I don't believe the Theory of Evolution, what truth am I not accepting? What INITIATED God? Why don't you respond to "Random G," someone who actually makes use of their brain cells? I admitted that I can not answer the question, because it is impossible to answer. I was not there when the universe began, and neither were you. You weren't there to determine whether there was a God that created everything, nor was anyone else. Why are you asking an impossible question and then patronizing the answerers? I am Agnostic, by the way.

Answer 10

Darwin's Theory of Evolution does not include an explanation of the creation of the Universe - Darwin was and remained throughout his life a member of the Church of England and did not renounce the existence of God.
The theory of evolution was simply the result of scientific observation and experimentation that proved living organisms (including humans) evolve in particular ways to deal with and best survive in their particular environment.
Darwin was not the first or only British scientist to come to this conclusion but he was the first to publish the thoughts.
Now to more important things to a scientist a 'theory' does not have the same meaning as it does to a lay man or a religious fundamentalist. A scientific theory is a thesis that has been researched, tested, replicated and proved. So Darwin's theory is (in scientific terms) proof of the existence of survival evolution.