A question on evolution?

Question

Im a creationist, and I wont lie. So now that we got all that out of the way. Lets focus on this.

Correct me if im wrong: According to science.

The world began somewhere between 7-20 billion years ago.
The earth itself about 4 billion.
The FIRST LIFE was single celled organisms.
Then from there evolution goes on its cycle.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM: If the first life was single celled organisms that appeared AFTER the earths creation, then how did the life get started if there WASNT any life to begin with.

You might counter this question by saying that a comet carrying the organisms hit earth.

But the same question arises, how did inanimate(non living) matter become living reproduceable life.

Since 1863 scientists have been trying to find away to create life from inanimate matter, and they cant do it.

Feel free to email me.

Okay, look in labs we can almost do anything, but a lab didnt create the world no matter what you believe. We have special crops weve made and in lab environments they thrive, but put them on a farm and theyre crap!

Answer 1

Once they answer this question there are so many more that come to the plate. Like how did something unisexual become bisexual? Where did we get male and famale? How come reproduction take 50% male and female? Where did the elements come from?

Once asked a question when will I-Pod evolve into a computer?
Answer~ Inanimate objects can't evolve, then how did the first particle become alive?

And from what I hear u say God isn't science. So why would He have to abide by your rules?

Answer 2

Science seems to say that God had nothing to do with it... and Creationists seem to say that science had nothing to do with it. If God created this world, then I would think He created science as well.

There's evidence that even the writers of the Bible didn't know how the Creation happened. For example, read Genesis 2, then go back and read Genesis 1. You'll find that these are actually two different creation stories that stand alone, and each story portrays events happening in a different order. This doesn't mean the Bible is "wrong." It just means that what happened is beyond the ability of the writers (and apparently our theologians and scientists as well) to adequately explain.

Questions like "How can there have been a 'first day' when there was not yet a sun or earth" may be silly, but they do point out one thing: mere human words cannot adequately convey the Mind of God and its actions.

Answer 3

The first life was likely simpler than a cell. Possibly just a single strand of RNA. We really don't know for sure but it certainly wasn't likely to be an entire cell.

The few small labs where people tried to create life were far smaller and for far less time than the likely infinite number of earth like planets where life could have evolved on.

I am not saying abiogenesis is easy but the universe ( or more likely multi-verse ) as a whole is likely so incredibly vast it doesn't matter. Remember it only takes one planet in the entire universe for life to form, evolve and flourish and evolve into us. Once it does so we call that planet earth. It is what we call a selection effect.

Remember if reality is infinite and sufficiently varied then anything that can happen will happen somewhere.

We still can't do lots of things that happen in nature by the way. Life isn't the only thing by any means . On any meaningful timescale we are still barely evolved from chimps.

Answer 4

The first life was probably even more simple then single celled organisms. Simple, self-replicating molecules can be formed given a similar environment to early earth. It shows that it is possible for life to start by change given the same environment that earth had billions of years ago. All you need is the right conditions in lets say a pond, and lighting to supply a energy source.

Also, there is absolutely nothing that scientists have done in a lab that hasn't already happened in our universe.

Answer 5

Prequel: You sound like an intelligent person with reasonable questions. I'm not trying to insult you, but some of this is harsh. Please keep an open mind.

1.The world is the earth:they are both 4 billion yrs old because they are the same.

2.Science doesn't claim to know everything, just that everything can be known through science (but will probably never be).

3.Life did arise out of nothing, because life is still just a layer of fundamental basic reactions, just in succesion.
a. The 1st step was when several primitive reactions began. Certain molecules began to fuse. Early earth was a dynamic place with lots of sources of energy (lightning was frequent, volcanic energy immense, no ozone leaving us prone to major radiation, comet impacts). The actual chemical theories vary and are vastly complicated. Essentially, all these molecules under intense bombardment started to come together to form amino acids. These amino acids later would fuse to form both proteins and DNA.The early pieces of organic matter are not considered life. Think of them as the building blocks or materials. But as more an more bombardments fused these blocks,more complicated reactions formed.These amino acids were forming bigger building blocks of life. Each step gave them more "lifelike properties" but they were still not life. Life is just a name we give when these complex reactions attain a very high level of complexity. These basic organisms were able to reproduce. Their is tons of proof for this, including the Urey and Miller experiment, the most well known. They replicated early earth conditions and actually created amino acids!!!!! So that step of the theory was greatly strengthened, and that was the part in most doubt.
4.This has nothing to do with evolution. No matter how creatures were created of came about, evolution did happen to them. Theory is the highest level scienctific reasoning can attain, and evolution is in scientific circles as undisputable as gravity.

5.Unfortunately, the mountains of evidence that verify evolution and the origin of life are too complicated for even many grad students to understand . So dount remains, though only among the commoners.

Hope tis answered your questions.

Answer 6

You are wrong that the first life was single celled organisms. first amino acids were formed which then combined into proteins, which are both biological mind you, and from there those proteins went on to create single celled organisms.

Now as to science creating these building blocks:
The Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 produced 13 of the 22 amino acids (the building blocks of life) that are used in the proteins that make up us. This experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2). The experiment heated these ingredients so they would evaporate, the passed an electric current through, just like in an atmosphere with static electricity, and then allowed it to condense, and the process started again. After one week they observed that 10-15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of organic compounds.

I will also add that the Murchison meteorite found in Australia in 1969 contained 90 different types of Amino Acids, 13 of which are found in life on Earth. Good thing God put those out in space too huh?

There were many more experiments along the Miller-Urey line over the years, all of which confirmed that biological components can come from non-biological ones. Stop holding out hope for the "I Dream of Jeanie" creation scenario...

And i just want to add that if you're going to blow things off because experiments are conducted in a lab, well then i suggest you dont use ANYTHING in your daily life, like anything with plastic in it, your car, any prescription and non-prescription pills, glue, gasoline, your computer, toothpaste, certainly dont drink anything thats not water, since everything from coke to gatorade to the homogonized milk you drink was created as a result of experimental lab work. Actually you cant drink water from the tap or a bottle in the US since there was lots of lab work that went into how tap and bottled water is processed.

I could go on forever, but I'm willing to bet you use most of these things all the time, so dont bash science in a lab. Thats how experiments are conducted, and look! We have all these neat technologies and things that improve our lives. If you wont accept experiments that were conducted just as thoroughly simply because you dont like the result, then you cant rationally or critically think without bias, and you are truly brainwashed.

Which i guess is the end result of Religion anyway, so i just argued myself into a circle and explained why you asked this question in the first place.

So i guess consider yourself wrong and corrected, but i'm sure you wont because you dont like the result.

Answer 7

You are talking about abiogenisis, not evolution. Evolution can ONLY start after life has begun.

Actually, amino acids have been created in a laboratory setting FROM INANIMATE MATTER. All life is made from amino acids.

Now, my question for you is, why do you think that science already knows everything it will ever know? Do you realize that just because we don't know how to do it right at this moment in time, that doesn't mean that we won't know how to do it sometime down the road?

Do you understand that just because we have yet to find out how to create an actual life form from those amino acids that DOES NOT automatically default to creationism being right?

It only means we don't know how to do it YET, it does NOT mean we won't ever know how to do it.

Answer 8

science doesn't know.

You are dealing with the problem of something coming from nothing, which is not possible. As far as I can reason with it, God generally refers to the concept of supreme, so that regardless of whether or not God exists, there is definitely, without a shadow of a doubt, a concept of supreme, in my mind, and in the universe (the universe itself, because it spawned everything that came after it.) So here's the thing, anything that is supreme could not have been created, because otherwise that thing which created it would be supreme. So I created the concept of supreme when I thought of it in my head, so I am more superior to the concept. So in comparison to the concept that I created, I am supreme.

Now if nothing created the universe, the universe is supreme.

So what does that mean? The universe created me, and I create my thoughts, so I am God of my thoughts.

Is the universe God of me? Sort of, with regard to my body and the elements I require to live, but other than that, I have free will which the universe can't prevent me from having or using, and since the universe can not prevent me from freely using my will, it is therefore not supremely powerful.

So either the universe allows for my free will (meaning it made that decision, implying God exists) or that the universe can not prevent my free will, which means I am more superior than the universe.

Ha ha, have fun trying to figure that one out boys and girls.

Answer 9

That's true, it's not known yet how life got started. Maybe it will be known one day. But that doesn't mean anything for the theory of biological evolution, which, as you point out, deals with life after it got started. If you're interested in answering this question, why not become a scientist and try to be the first to discover how life began?

Answer 10

How did you ever get the concept that "the world" and Earth are different things?

When you talk about life coming from inanimate matter, you need to realize that "life" is not a black and white category. In fact, life doesn't really exist. The process we call "life" is comprised of electrochemical reactions which are simply ruled by physics. Physical laws control matter and energy in the entire universe, and we IMAGINE categories of things to help us cope.

Answer 11

you sum up scientific theory far better than most creationists. I see no attempt to smear or distort, and I commend you for that. It's quite a refreshing change.

fossil and genetic evidence does lead scientists to conclude that single-celled life did come first. Exactly how that came about remains a mystery, one that science continues to explore.

If one describes life in terms of a chemical reaction, its creation was a rare and elusive one. In the grand scale of time, 1.5 centuries to duplicate something that presumably had billions of years to develop is just the blink of an eye.

good question!