Spontaneous generation has never been observed. Is then evolution a theory?

Question

If you can cite an example of spontaneous generation please cite your source or a link to your source.

I sense a weakness in the "so called scientific crowd" Religion and science are in agreement in the sense they reflect one and only one reality. If a living God has spoken and has become flesh then it is only reasonable to assume that any interaction with mankind could be observed scientifically. However the obligation to believe in the interaction requires faith. Just like the belief in evolution to leads one to believe in spontaneous generation as stated by "The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. George Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46."

Answer 1

The Miller-Urey experiment

The classic experiment for Origin of Life
It proved creation of organic chemicals from inorganic
and disproved Pasteurs conclusions of 1859
It was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago.

Answer 2

Evolution IS a theory, and nobody who understands or believes evolution will say otherwise. The problem is that most people don't understand the word THEORY. A theory is what happens when a HYPOTHESIS has found sufficient proof to elevate it to a theory. A theory is a model which has been shown sufficient to explain the NATURE of EVIDENCE. Evolution explains the genetic similarities between certain species, it explains the fossil evidence that we have found, including extinct species and such.

As for spontaneous generation, because conditions now aren't the same as when it supposedly happened on Earth, that doesn't mean that it didin't happen. Scientists are working on expirements that may shed some light on the problem. Gasses and chemicals that may have existed in the early Earth environments are being put into reaction vessels, along with stimulus, such as sparks, simulating lightning and such, and complex chemicals do result. Perhaps genetic material may at some point result in these chambers, maybe not. Earth was much larger than a laboratory vessel, and lightning is much more energetic than a spark that will be produced by a desktop generator. Too, the universe is quite large and quite old, and the possibility that life came to Earth on an asteroid that originated somewhere else exists.

That we don't see something now doesn't mean that it never happened. Life exists here on Earth, and it came about somehow. One may believe that there is this all-powerful eternal being that one day after part of an eternity became bored and said "let's make something .... I haven't done that before, and while I'm at it , I'll arrange that most of the creatures I create will make me unhappy and I'll torture them in hell for the rest of eternity". Some may believe that it's all chance and that there's nothing afterward, and some might believe a different story.

We're all here though, and we need to coexist. I think it will be quite a while before we have any reasonable sort of proof as to the true genesis of life on Earth.

Answer 3

Excuse me Jett, you have just stated that you have not witnessed evolution but have found fossils.... Correct?

So would it be accurate to say that u are making an assumption that they can evolve into another? We have never witnessed it, yet you say it is just a fact as gravity. We can test and repeat gravity, yet even it is not a fact....

What is to say that the next time i drop a book, it doesn't go floating to the ceiling? Can you prove it won't? What if you do it a thousand times and stop.... What if the next time it would have floated?

There is an unspoken assumption made that things can evolve, when we have never seen them do so... Evolution is a religion for the time being, it is not a theory or a fact, it isn't even out of the hypothosis stage.....

Creation has the same evidence as evolution has, and ours actually makes sense, there is no mystery..... Everything happened for a reason, unlike evolution where we haven't even solved how or why?

I do not buy into evolution...

Answer 4

In discussing scientific themes, do NOT use the word "theory" when what you really mean is 'hypothesis".

Below are two quotes from wikipedia online encyclopedia:

1. "Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis, meaning it is the working assumption for scientists researching how life began. If it were proven false, then another line of thought would be used to modify or replace abiogenesis as a hypothesis. If test results provide sufficient support for acceptance, then that is the point at which it would become a theory."

2. "The modern concept of abiogenesis has been criticized by scientists throughout the years. Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle did so based on the probability of abiogenesis actually occurring. Hubert Yockey did so by saying that it is closer to theology than science.

Other scientists have proposed counterpoints to abiogenesis, such as, Harold Urey, Stanley Miller, Francis Crick (a molecular biologist), and Leslie Orgel's Directed Panspermia theory.

Since it is difficult to prove abiogenesis has occurred, and even more difficult to falsify it, the hypothesis has many such critics: even in the scientific world. Nonetheless, research and hypothesizing continues in the hope of putting together the specific building blocks thought to yield abiogenesis."

Contrary to popular opinion, note that

1. Prominent SCIENTISTS including Miller, Urey and Crick)have MAJOR problems with abiogenisis,
2. There are DEFINATELY NOT thousands of transitional forms,
3. Miller-Urey experiments DO NOT prove that life originated from non-living chemicals.
4. Macroevolution is not a scientific theory but merely a hypothesis (and not a very good one at that).

Answer 5

Evolution is a separate line. Evolution is about how things progress after you have life. Evolution is very well understood.

You are talking about Abiogenesis and that is very much a theory. We know big chunks of it. We have the chemistry down. But it isn't completely together, yet. Not knowing about bacteria wasn't evidence of demonic possession (that is what the superstitious thought) and not knowing this isn't evidence of anything supernatural.

Answer 6

spontaneous generation of life hasnt been found that I know of. But even if evoloution is true, where did things evolve from in the first place? Evoloution needs to have something to start with to evolve from. So now were back to spontaneous generation of at least some kind of small beginning of life before it could evolve into something greater like a human. So I dont know. Hope this helps sort of.

Answer 7

I don't think any reputable scientists has believed in spontaneous generation for many decades; however, at some point in the distant past, a living cell would have to come into being quite suddenly in order to survive, if there is no Creator.

Answer 8

All the evidence suggests that it occurred only once. Evolution is a sound theory since it does not depend on the mechanism by which life arose, only that it exist.

By your logic, God does not exist since the Earth was created only once.

Answer 9

evolution is a theory, just ask your science teacher. it hasnt been proven yet. for something to be a religion you must believe in something that you haven't seen. no one has seen macro-evolution(one species becoming a totally different species) so evolution could itself be considered a religion especially since they haven't found any transitional fossils(missing links) also, I believe that science and religion go hand in hand. Many secular scinetists claim that it can take thousands of years to form one layer of fossils yet they have found trees fossilized upright going through several layers.

Answer 10

That's OOL, not evolution. ToE has nothing at all to do with the Origins Of Life, only its diversity, so: no cite, no link, no source. Given your question, I'd suggest Darwin's masterpiece, so you have an adequate understanding for your questions on R&S.