If you do not believe that God created life then can you give a viable alternative explaination?

Question

Something that does not involve aliens or meteorites since that would take us back to square one.

Capt Zeembo - I said "viable". Your answer violates the second law of thermodynamics. Unless you can show how abiogenesis is possible or where it has been achieved.

Dojoman - I have already looked it up and see that in over 100 years of scientific research, it has not been demonstrated how it is even possible. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

jewishgirljess -
viable - adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable"

Or more specifically, I am looking for something that can be demonstrated or a theory that does not violate the laws of physics.

So then, if you determine that life (DNA and/or RNA) is not a closed system then why is there no progress in synthesizing DNA from it's base components? That is, why is it so fragile? By the second law, it doesn't put itself together so you need an outside force. Now you have the problem of defining the outside source. What is the outside source then?

Cap'n Zeebo - Why didn't I think of that? Ok, now that you have it figured out, we can make up a batch of DNA from scratch. I'll get the peptides. You can sterilize the vat.

SoCrates of R&S - You have avoided answering a 'yes' or 'no' question. WOW. All I wanted was an answer. I made it as simple as possible. You ask me to, "Please explain to all of us how GOD creating the universe is a testable theory, or how it does not violate the laws of Physics". That would be where you hit the "Ask" button at the top of the screen. It will cost you 5 points. That way I can come and NOT answer your question with a question and earn 2 points. See how that works?"

Now, when you say that I told a lie to get you to come here, you gave your own lie away. Do you really want me to read you? You call someone an "idiot" after complaining about somebody using the word 'fool' and you want to call somebody else a hypocrite and act all innocent!?!? Come on now. Surely you can see that isn't the way to be.

Mastermind - Square one means, if life came here from somewhere else, from a meteor or by aliens then the origin of life still has yet to be explained, the only difference being location. For simplification, I took "location" out of the equation. If the question were, "How do you make fried chicken?" then KFC is not an answer. How then do they make fried chicken?

Simon T - The Urey-Miller experiment produced amino acids. It did not produce either DNA or RNA. Amino acids are the building blocks of DNA just like water, flour, salt and leaven are the ingredients for baking bread. You identify the sun as the energy source (oven), you have the ingredients (amino acids) so, Where's the Baker?

salient 2 - Your credentials are impressive and you have identified the solar system as being the "closed system" to address my application of the 2nd law wherein order (life) is sustained. It does not explain exactly how amino acids come together to form DNA. If we put amino acids in close proximity and apply the energy of the sun, we do Not get DNA. As in my "bread" analogy, we still need a baker. Your application rather explains how to make Toast. Don't you need bread first.

Answer 1

Natural evolutionary processes, following an explosion of a singularity that created the universe.

Next?

EDIT: The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to closed systems. Life is not a closed system.

Answer 2

It has been shown that on the Earth 4 billion years ago the conditions were right to produce plentiful amino acids.

There would have been constantly combining, dissolving and recombining of these molecules.

As soon as any combination formed that was capable of making copies (as DNA and RNA do today) from the surrounding materials faster than those molecules dissolved then 'life' started.

The rest is evolution which is well understood.


Edit:
Second law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems. The Earth is not a closed system due to the sun providing about 1kW per m^2. That is a lot of energy.
If the 2nd law applied as you claim then life on Earth would not be sustainable and we would have all died out ages ago.

Look up the Urey-Miller experiment. It produced lots and lots of amino acids in a couple of liters in a few weeks. Try to imagine that done over 500,000,000 years in millions of cubic miles of oceans.

Answer 3

Sure I can think up lots of viable explanations.. none of which can be falsified at the present time... For the moment I admit I don't know how it all started.. but I think that's better than being arrogant enough to think I know all the answers based on a book written by man, translated by man and interpreted by man... God of the gaps doesn't do it for me, I will live happily with that particular gap until it is filled with something we can really place stock in.

Ok here is explanation #1 I am making this up as I go along so bear with me.. There is a creature called a snarfblat, it can convert the energy of thought into matter.. it had a dream one night and here we are!

#2 Humans (not aliens) existed on a planet before this one, they screwed that up just like we are doing now, and destroyed their planet.. they wanted a fresh start so they used their advanced technology to create a machine that could coalesce matter and form a planet, then they seeded it with the beginnings of life (including human life) and let evolution take over.. Unfortunately they didn't have the technology to give them eternal life and they went extinct before humans emerged on this planet.

#3 God did it... (wow this one is too easy, it didn't require any thought or critical thinking at all!)

#4 There is no beginning or end, the earth merely blinks in and out of existence because of dimensional rifts...

#5 Mice built this planet with their superior intelligence.. they currently rule the world we just don't know it.. All hail the creator Mus!

There now does that answer your question sufficiently enough? Nobody knows what started it all, at least not yet...

Answer 4

Wrong! Obviously you know nothing about thermodynamics. As one who has taken graduate level physics courses and worked at NASA on the Einstein observatory project. I can tell you that what you are saying that anything regarding abiogenesis violates thermodynamics is completely clueless.

It is very simple physics, for every useful high energy photon we receive from the sun, we radiate about 20 relatively useless low energy photons. This maintains the earth's average temperature, providing a net gain of about 19 units of order. Basically if the creationist argument were correct you could never clean your house and it would continue to get more cluttered, but we increase the order in our house by throwing out useless garbage, and that is essentially what the sun allows the earth to do allowing the surplus of relatively useless low energy photons to be released into space.

Now as far as how abiogenesis occurred, I wasn't there but I see no reason for claiming the first life was poofed into being by a magical being.

Answer 5

It takes two things. The first is the very first, very simplest life forms. That part is difficult but not impossible. The second part is all answered by evolution and environment. Once life is started, getting to the millions of differently evolved species on this planet is the easy part... it just takes time.

So- back to the first part- the very first life. Granted, it's highly unlikely that any particular group of elements will come together to form something we call 'life'. But- it only needs to happen ONE time. It took 3.5 billion years on this planet for that event to occur. Given the number of molecules bumping into each other- perhaps that seems just about right.

I find it funny that so many people think that 'God' is a viable alternative explanation. It's like saying "magic" did it.

Answer 6

In 1954 Stanley Lloyd Miller conducted an experiment. He took the basic elements of the universe, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, methene and ammonia, sealed them in a glass container that had electrodes in it. He sparked his experiment regularly and a few weeks later he had created life, at least the basic building blocks of life, amino acids. Dozens of scientists have done the same or similar things since then with similar results. It has been scientifically verified with all scientific parameters. The most simple RNA string to duplicate only needs to be 1800 protiens long. If you take Millers experiment and multiply it by untold trillions of times - the earth and its oceans - use multi-billion volt lightning strikes instead of a small spark, add volcanic activity, which they duplicated in the lab, and do that over billions of years life could very easily form, since it did in a lab experiment.

Answer 7

Ever heard of Abiogenesis?? Try looking that up. Its a viable theory.


You need to know that the 2nd law of thermodynamics involves CLOSED SYSTEMS. The earth receives light and warm from teh sun, so it is not a closed system. TRY AGAIN.

EDIT* "Or more specifically, I am looking for something that can be demonstrated or a theory that does not violate the laws of physics." Please explain to all of us how GOD creating the universe is a testable theory, or how it does not violate the laws of Physics... Yeah, thats what I thought...

Answer 8

"If you do not believe that God created life then can you give a viable alternative explaination?
Something that does not involve aliens or meteorites since that would take us back to square one."

This a logical fallacy called a loaded question. You can't ask for other possible explanations while at the same time ruling out other possible explanations. You might have well have asked:

"Can you give a possible alternative to God that does not invovle anything but God?"

You can't simply rule out aliens or astriods because you feel like it. Remember, you arguing from the point of "faith" and not science, so you can't rule out something like an astroid because it takes us back to square one (whatever square one is).

Answer 9

Abiogenesis has happened. We are here. It sounds much more plausible than the idea that Gods made us. Who made these Gods? That just causes more questions. I don't know what creationist science you have been reading, but the second law of thermodynamics does not prove or disprove anything.

Your God idea can not be demonstrated either.

Answer 10

Imagine you heard gunshots. A man was found dead. Police asked you who did it. It is not only okay, but also honest, to say, "I don't know."

Even if you place particular value in an old book or an ancient story, in truth, none of us were there at the time. We are not eyewitnesses. Since the best hypothoses are still very inconclusive, there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." And neither do you.

Answer 11

I didn't create the universe, nor was I here (at least in my present form) when it happened, so I can't say with any certainty how it was created.

This same humility before this fact should be applied to religious faith as well, because you weren't alive when the words of God were supposedly transcribed from God him / her / it self.