Atheist Why can't scientists create the simplest forms of life in the lab?

Question

According to the theory of evolution the first living cells came from a chemical soup billions of years ago, why can't we create life in the science lab, most atheist want to forget about the famous Dr. Miller experiment, where he failed to make the simplest fatty lipid cell in the science lab, so theres absolutly no proof? if it can't be proven in science why is it cosidered science? Thats why atheist still believe in spontanous generation or "abogenesis" even though is already been proven wrong..life only cames from pre exsisting life law of boigenesis. Do you know that one strand of DNA contains 600,000 pages worth of information? does that type of complicated life come from dirt and water or any chemical? Science says no, atheist say yes, wheres the common sense? I would like constructive answers, so far I've been getting no answers just alot of crying and name calling... and that doesn't answer the facts that I presented...

Answer 1

I asked a question yesterday regarding the origin of life. I did not get many responses. The problem here is due to the lack of scientific knowledge many atheists claim to have but lack. I have yet to see an atheist examine evolution from a scientific point of view (in detail). They treat science as if it were their revelation to our existence. Why can't they use it to back up their belief?

I challenge any atheist who reads this to answer my question below. Or anyone in general. It is not just for atheists.

Edit: I am really proving my point having 5 thumbs down because nobody has taken me up on my challenge.

Answer 2

You said "According to the theory of evolution the first living cells came from a chemical soup billions of years ago"

That is just factually incorrect. You are further proof that the only people who reject evolution are the ones who do not understand it.

Read this for a crash course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#_note-103

An excerpt:
The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began. The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.

Answer 3

For all people anti-theist and pro-science- None of you can go against what this person is asking! NONE OF YOU!!! You all talk about dna and cloning- that is taking life that HAS been created, implanting an unfertilized egg into an embryo of another species and fertilizing it. WOW!!!

That is not Creating life! The experiment this person talks about was a botched experiment to come up with the supposed primordial soup from which all life came from. He couldn't do it!!! You are false in saying we should wait.

We have waited since Darwin, no animal he saw has transformed. Viruses and bacteria are the only things that we can see mutating and changing. That doesn't mean that they will become apes, chimps or humans. We may be able to create amino acids but can we place them in the right order to create a life? No! Oh, and how were amino acids created? Has a scientist done this? NO! That is what this failed experiment was trying to do.

IT FAILED!!!

Answer 4

For all you atheists answering saying that they have created life, we cloned a whole sheep, etc. etc. Thats all good and great but first of all I don't see the point of creating life in a lab second of all I know that these things are in the works but where did the first human come about on this earth, obviously there weren't any scientists mixing in different chemicals around at the time so how do you explain that. You would rather argue that there is no God then try to see our point of view, yet you call us hypocrites.

Answer 5

heres a clue

this is the layman's version

put some basic chemicals in a dish and zap them with uv light and presto you get amino acids
amino acids form proteins which are the basic buiding blocks of life

this has been done and simulates conditions believed to exist billions of years ago on the planet


dont be so closed minded and you might learn

god bless

Answer 6

why didn't edison invent the computer? i'll tell you why because science is accumulative over time. life is basically very simple, it is organic compounds bonding in such a way, as the natural law of the universe dictates, to form complex replicating molecules that can also transmit information. we know how life works, we just haven't got the technology to manipulate molecules at that level......yet. we will soon, sooner than you think. we haven't got fusion power yet because we cannot create the temperatures necessary for the instigation of fusion, but we're close and edging towards it.
do you understand how science works, your question seems to indicate that you don't, science and knowledge grow and evolve over time, it doesn't just pop into existence.

Answer 7

So no intelligence is needed to produce lab created RNA, the molecules just sequence themselves? Every chemist on earth would laugh in your face!! If you believe this you truly are a delusional moron!! Natural conditions dont produce any meaningful genetic information!

Answer 8

If I want to bake a cake, and all I had was, motor oil, and oh, say liquid cement, and sand! Would I get a cake? No, I would just have a mess! If you don't have the ingredients to make what you want to, or if you have them, and don't use them in proper amounts, you are not going to get what you want, as an end result! You need the correct recipe!
When they learn what they are doing, they will succeed, and do it very well!

Answer 9

So you want us to go out and show you the links and research paper on what has been done so far thus allowing you more time to indoctrinate your self with "pseudo science"?

Strange, Dr Miller did succeed in his experiments, that was what you meant to say?

"Science says no, atheist say yes"??? I think you have that backward, once again try actual research and less comic book creationism.

Answer 10

Actually, you've been getting lots of answers. But as your avatar's rose-colored glasses suggest, you see (and read) only what you want.

Scientific limitations (and science is not as limited as you suggest in this regard; you might want to do some reading) are not proof of a God. You might as well say scientific limitations are proof of an invisible ice cream cone. Your assertion is logically meaningless.

Oh, and I think you're confusing atheists with scientists. If you really want to get ripped to shreds, head to a science forum.

And to think I was nice to you in another post. Typical Christian, bearing false witness.

And btw, it's atheists. Plural.

Answer 11

I'm still waiting for your failed god to make one. Miller-Urey was able to create amino acids, the first building blocks of life. I don't want to forget it. There may be a bit of your churches history that would be better forgotten, but that is not how science works. It is something to build on.