Ok Atheists, exactly, precisely where did the first cell of life come from? When? How? Why?

Question

You don't like the answer that God is the creator

I am not insulting you, no trying to insult you,

I am being objective---so for the respectful atheists, where and why and how did it all begin, the first living cell was a _____?

For the immature, thoughtless who want to answer with insults or demeaning comments-- go ahead, I will ignore you, like I ignore rude undisciplined children in public.

Answer 1

god knows how to answer you question

Answer 2

A soap bubble. Two molecules fit together so they form a complex molecule. One of the molecules hates water, the other loves it. The one becomes a wall on the outer environment; the other a wall on the inner environment. Wallah; you've got a single cell. While its not actually a soap buble, you get the idea. The real question is how those two molecules first bumped into each other?
Maybe they wanted to become more than they were; maybe God said, "Let there be Bubbles". One day we may come up with a good idea precisely how it happened, but not by sudenly proclaiming, "therefore, God!"
Is this in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy under the "You-lack-immediate-proof" Proof of the Existence of God?

I appoligize for attempting to answer this question since I am not an Atheist; but the more that spiritually based people make
non points as if they had demonstrated something (which they picked up in an organized religion's propaganda) the harder it becomes to talk about real spirituality or anything that isn't concrete.

Answer 3

The Miller-Urey experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected together in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. As observed in all consequent experiments, both left-handed (L) and right-handed (D) optical isomers were created in a racemic mixture.

The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system, but the experiment established that the hypothetical processes could produce some building blocks of life without requiring life to synthesize them first.
And the first cells fromed where Eukaryots

Answer 4

Atheists are people who don't believe in a supreme being. This does not necessarily equip them to see into the past. None of us were there, as you will remember from Job "Were you there when I lay the foundations of the world..."

If we are truly objective, we will admit that it is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of God. All that we know, all that we experience as real exists as neurological activity in our brains. Our experience of God and our experience of eating a piece of pie are equally "real" to the mind, according to Dr. Andrew Newberg. We cannot know that God is real in any objective sense.

Both the atheist and theist must believe in something. Without a background of belief we would be unable to function. Both experience what they believe as real.

What shall we do when we cannot know? We might try to persuade those that do not believe as we do, we might see them as a threat and attack them, we might even come to the understanding that they are much like us, and treat them with the same respect and regard as we would enjoy ourselves.

Answer 5

It seems that the scientists have eloquently taught in various schools on the world that the cell or living form comes from dust in the miracles of nature by chance of thunders or of aliens about millions of years after a miraculous Big Bang precisely about 13.7 billion years ago.
You are free to objectively deny the intelligent creation of the One True God, but I fear that you may need more immature, thoughtless, rude answers from other people to understand the miracles announced by your respecful atheist teachers.

Answer 6

Hello Lovers - There is such things as natural processes! Big & complex come from simple - smaller less complex. The Earth certainly wasn't created in days but metaphor for many years- countless. Atoms form larg compounds, structures, cells.

Answer 7

Don't know; I wasn't there. I like the RNA world hypothesis as a plausible explanation for how to make a really simple life form. That, or assume the universe is infinite and the development of a cell on at least one planet around one star becomes inevitable.

Here's an explanation of the RNA world hypothesis:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/articles/altman/index.html

Answer 8

Nobody knows the answer to that. The difference between atheists and xians is that the atheists don't invent stories and myths to fill these gaps in our knowledge. We'll admit we don't know...yet.

Answer 9

Why specifically atheists? Surely this is a question for the scientific community.

Anyone who claims that it is known how the first cell formed would be stretching the truth. In reality, nobody knows.

Personally I have no problem with you believing that God created all complex organisms but I'd appreciate it if you kept that belief to yourself. The rest of us will continue to accept reviewed scientific knowledge.

Answer 10

Many people have answered that question before. Answering it again, would make no difference to you since your mind is already lost to religious indoctrination.

Answer 11

We don't know, and neither do you.

You need to work on your arrogance problem. You're behaving like a rude, undisciplined child.