What is life?

Question

If life just appeared naturally, why don't we have even one instance of that happening lately? And why haven't scientists ever succeeded in creating life into a laboratory? Isn't that proof that God is the one who put life into unliving matter?

Both organic and inorganic matter are made of the same 100 and some chemical elements. What is that which makes some of those combinations of chemical elements move around, divide, reproduce, think, react, in other words - live. Is it just certain organization of molecules or there is something more to it?

Answer 1

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

Are those who advocate evolution in agreement? How do these facts make you feel about what they teach?

The introduction to the centennial edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, 1956) says: “As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists, not only about the causes of evolution but even about the actual process. This divergence exists because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution.”—By W. R. Thompson, then director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada.

“A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place—and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . A state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of [evolutionary] sect urging some new modification.”—C. Booker (London Times writer), The Star, (Johannesburg), April 20, 1982, p. 19.

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”—October 1980, p. 88.

What view does the fossil record support?

Darwin acknowledged: “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.” (The Origin of Species, New York, 1902, Part Two, p. 83) Does the evidence indicate that “numerous species” came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds?

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?

Smithsonian Institution scientist Porter Kier says: “There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world.” (New Scientist, January 15, 1981, p. 129) A Guide to Earth History adds: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.”—(New York, 1956), Richard Carrington, Mentor edition, p. 48.

What does the fossil record actually show?

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.

A View of Life states: “Beginning at the base of the Cambrian period and extending for about 10 million years, all the major groups of skeletonized invertebrates made their first appearance in the most spectacular rise in diversity ever recorded on our planet.”—(California, 1981), Salvador E. Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, Sam Singer, p. 649.

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467.

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best.”—Liberty, September/October 1975, p. 12.

Carl Sagan, in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”—(New York, 1980), p. 29.

Might it be that the evolutionary process took place as a result of mutations, that is, sudden drastic changes in genes?

Science Digest states: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, the magazine also quotes British zoologist Colin Patterson as stating: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.” (February 1982, p. 92) In other words, there is no evidence to support the theory.

The Encyclopedia Americana acknowledges: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”—(1977), Vol. 10, p. 742.

Answer 2

You are inserting a conclusion! If life is not able to be created in a laboratory, then life just can't be created in a laboratory....it doesn't mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Just because a scientist may not be able to create life in a laboratory, which they can, does not mean that God exists.

Just because your cake doesn't rise in the oven, does not mean that God is the only one who can properly bake cakes!

Take a class that covers scientific method; or, for that matter go back to/stay in school and don't believe everything that you are told. The true light comes from within, it is not placed there by others.

By the way; life is the period of time that your bodily functions are operational; from initial conception to death! At least that is the fundamental answer.

Answer 3

Happening natrually: current theory says (if current theory is right) that life can only be created under very unusual circumstances--an extremely specific type of environment which does not currently exist on Earth. Furthermore, if new life were "created", it would be at the microscopic (molecular) level--you wouldn't "see" it. It (by current theory) wouldn't be observable for millions of years.

Scientists making new life: because they don't have the technology. Is it fair to say to someone from Europe two thousand years ago: Why hasn't anyone here ever created fireworks? You have these things that explode in the sky and make loud noise, but none of you can create new ones. Doesn't that mean that God created them? No, it just means the Chinese did, and European scientists couldn't at that time replicate the skill. Just because humans can currently do something doesn't mean they won't be able to in the future.

Answer 4

They have created amino acids in laboratories and they are the building blocks of genetic material. Over a timescale of tens of millions of years it is more likely than not that somewhere the correct conditions would exist for amino acids to form simple organic lifeforms. Furthermore Earth's atmosphere has gone through radical changes-it may have been specific atmospheric and climatic conditions that encouraged the original formation of life on this planet. In any case the scientific explanations are preferable to the alternative which relies on blind faith in an unseen deity.

Answer 5

I don't know if I would consider it proof. If you take the scientific version of the age of the Universe or this planet, we have been around for not even half of a half of a second. We've been working in labs for even a shorter period of time. Quite frankly, if spontaneous life happens, statistically, we haven't been around long enough to see it.

That being said, I believe in God, but I have no proof of he existence of God, or how He operates. And honestly, I don't need it.

Answer 6

A four letter word "life" is very easy to say. but to know what is life you need your whole life to know what is it? live and let live is what life means .behaving like a respectable person by respecting others and leading a simple life by following the moral values and spending the money in such a way that the single paisa u spend is makes the world to remember u forever. to see life just give ur first salary to your parents the happiness they get in there HEART,though u may not see, but the feeling in their heart u can see in their eyes ,the tears,just touchs ur heart . the hears of ur hand will stand ,that is life what i means.

Answer 7

Life is great

Answer 8

hOW DO you know life is not appeared naturally, it may be happening somewhere. Recently a child was born with a tail in India, he is been worshipped as hanuman god. Keep reading newspapers and watch lot of tv news you'll find many,

Answer 9

How do you know it there have been no instances lately? It starts very small. Life didn't begin with a species suddenly coming into being. How do we know that there isn't life spontaneously coming into being all around us.

Answer 10

Only God know how to create life.
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mothere's womb.