How was the first life form created? (Not the christian belief)?

Question

Hmmm... Im agnostic and I was just wondering how the very first life form came to be. I know what christians will tell me about god making the earth in 7 days (or 6). But for those of you who don't believe in the bible stories, do you have any theories?

To the christians that I SOMEHOW offended... I already know what you are going to say, therefore I dont need my question filled with a repetitive answer that I obviously dont believe anyways. IF THIS QUESTION WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT MEANT FOR YOU THEN DONT GET OFFENDED WHEN YOU BUTT IN ANYWAYS! I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE. GOD DIDNT WRITE IT. A BUNCH OF UNEDUCATED PEOPLE DID. So yes... I am looking for facts. not lies or mythology. FOR THE REST OF YOU... THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWERS.

BTW... IF I WANTED TO "COME UP WITH MY OWN LIES" THEN I COULD... AS FOR YOU... YOU GET YOUR LIES (AND YOUR TRUTH) FROM AN OLD MYTHOLOGY BOOK. And I'm not the creative one???

Answer 1

No one has demonstrated how RNA could have formed before living cells were around to make it. According to Gerald Joyce Research Institute biochemist, RNA is not a plausible candidate for the fist building block of life"becuase it is unlikely to have been produced in significant quantitiies on primitive earth". Even if RNA could have been produced it would not have survived long under conditions thought to have existed on early Earth. German researcer Klaus Dose wrote in 1988 that "current theory is a scheme of ignorance. Without fundamentally new insights this ignorance is likely to persist". Salk Intisitute scientist Leslie Orgil acknowledged in 1998 like a detective story "we are very far from knowing whodunit".New York Times science writer wrote in 2000 "Everything we know about the origin of life on earthis a mystery, and it seems the more that is known, the more accute the puzzles get". Edit. Contrary to what Fokkerball asserts science does misprepesent and mislead the public. Even organizations such as the national acadamy of Sciences, National Geographic and biology textbooks. In 1986 chemist Robert Shapiro wrote a book criticizing several aspects of reseaerch of origin of life. he was especially critical of the argument that the Urey Miller experiment had proved that the earths primitive conditions were strongly reducing. "We have reached a situation" he wrote "where a theory has been accepted as fact by some, and possible contrary evidence is shunted asside." He concluded that this is mythology rather than science." Are we teaching our kids mythology rather than science?

Answer 2

In the beginning of the creation, the Lord first expanded Himself in the universal form of the purusa incarnation and manifested all the ingredients for the material creation. And thus at first there was the creation of the sixteen principles of material action.
The first purusa(first expantion of God)from His skin holes innumerable universes have sprung up. In each and every universe, the purusa enters as the second expantion, Vishnu. He is lying within the half of the universe which is full with the water of His body. And from the navel of Vishnu has sprung the stem of the lotus flower, the birthplace of Brahmä(the first created being), who is the father of all living beings and the master of all the demigod engineers engaged in the perfect design and working of the universal order.

Answer 3

I wouldn't use the word "created" in that way. Created connotes a creator and there is no sufficient evidence to support a creator. I would ask "how did the first life forms arise," and that is currently a gap in scientific knowledge. The best hypothesis out there is that chemical compounds formed in an appropriate atmosphere either here on earth, or on another body and commuted here on space debris. There still isn't enough evidence to make a positive case on that matter.

Answer 4

The thing about science is it's not teaching dogma like religion, but learning as it goes. Science is the pursuit of facts. The study of evolution in earnest hasn't been going on for long and it's only in the last 30 years or so that we have gained technology that improves the studies dramatically. Science as of yet cannot answer how that first life form came to be, at least not for a fact, but science isn't afraid to say "we don't know at this time. Science, unlike religion doesn't claim to have all the answers Perhaps they never will but they have dramatic, verifiable proof of much of evolution.

Answer 5

There are numerous hypotheses within the field of abiogenesis.

Of DNA-first, protein-first, and RNA-first, I think I'd have to put my money on RNA-first, because RNA has the capacity to act as both an enzyme (RNA and protein) as well as information storage (RNA and DNA). Also, RNA can serve as a template for DNA, which provides a pathway for the transition to DNA/Protein mediated by RNA.

That's just my take on the available information.

Ultimately, I don't think we'll ever know though, not with absolute certainty.

Answer 6

Hate to be the one to tell ya', but you're on a wild goose chase. You will never find the answer until you break down and accept the fact that God created everything. Until you do, you'll never find the answers.

Nothing comes from nothing. If you believe in a 'Big Bang', where did everything that created the 'Big Bang' come from? There had to exist time, space, gases, liquids, and solid chemicals even to have this so-called "beginning".

Answer 7

Go to the library and get the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. The second chapter, called "The Replicators," will answer your question.

Answer 8

Uh ........ not all Christians are creationalists. Do you know the meaning of the word?

"But for those of you who don't believe in the bible stories, do you have any theories?"

Why? Our views don't count?

Answer 9

In other words, "Don't tell me the truth. I specifically want to be told lies."

If you're not creative enough to come up with your own lies, you're especially asking for it.

Answer 10

Well we have a lot of the Chemistry down, but the picture is still incomplete. They can do it in the lab as far as a virus, so there is a start.