First of all, how can life originate from a matter without life, go ahead try to mix whatever you want, you wont be able to get a cell, a cell that is very complex.
You need everything in a cell for it to work, and it is impossible for all of them to come by stages, this only leads to sudden appearances.
The billions of parts had to come at the same place, the same time and then organize itself into this complex cell, that is one hard thing to believe.
2007-10-05 11:45:51 · 15 answers · asked by Farid 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Nurdee, have you even seen the complexity of a cell, for example, you need protein which is the building block of life and DNA to make the protein reproduce, but you cant have these two without each other, fred hoyle, the evolutionist said that the chance of life on earth is like the chance of a tornado sweeping across a junkyard and then assembling a boeing 747 with the parts therein. So if you dont have trouble believing that, then it is up to you.
2007-10-05 11:53:11 · update #1
No one alive can claim to know how life started (abiogenesis not evolution). Neither can you. It is generally agreed however that it started not with a single cell but with something far more basic than even that, like self-replicating proteins for example (molecular rather than cellular).
2007-10-05 11:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by Citizen Justin 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
you are all over the place. pick one topic and stick to it. stop changing the subject each time you are challenged. you are making no claims that cannot be easily refuted by consulting the index to creationist claims that i linked to earlier... perhaps if you learnt something about evolution, you might see why it is held to be a good scientific theory by the majority of informed rational people.
"The billions of parts had to come at the same place, the same time and then organize itself into this complex cell, that is one hard thing to believe."
did you know that NO ONE believes that that happened, except creationists who think that god popped the first cell into existence? you are arguing against comic book versions of evolution that no serious researchers would consider for a moment.
your whole approach to knowledge is useless and self-defeating. if scientists don't know something, their reaction is "hmm, ok, how can we find out?". yours apparently is to attribute whatever you don't understand to god, and pretend that something has been explained. your "method" is a celebration of ignorance and a denial of the possibility of discovery. you're being an idiot about this, but i don't think you're an idiot generally. please stop being an idiot farid, for all our sakes.
2007-10-05 11:57:31 · answer #2 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Been done:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_29/c3792082.htm http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1072266v1
If that isn't the line that you think is life, you email me and tell me EXACTLY what makes something alive and something not alive. They have built brand new bacterial genomes using only the membrane out of other bacteria. They are maybe 3 years away from needing that and will be making the totally from scratch. But in any event, viruses are your start. And that they can make from scratch.
2007-10-05 12:01:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You're absolutely right, it is hard to believe.
But then, consider: If you're a Biblical Creationist, G-d is much more complex than a simple protobiont. Isn't it much less likely that G-d would self-assemble from Chaos and Void than that a protobiont would self-assemble from biochemical monomers?
2007-10-05 12:02:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Oh! ...and a bearded gent sitting up in the clouds with everybody on Earth under surveillance every second of each of their lives is easy to believe I suppose. What ooze did he spontaneously pop up from fully formed I wonder?
2007-10-05 11:55:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
What you say has all ready been disproven. If you really wanted to know the answers, which I doubt, there are a lot of web sites to study. http://evolution.berkeley.edu for one.
2007-10-05 18:08:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The life/non-life dichotomy isn't really valid. There are plenty of in-between stages, such as viruses.
And it is possible for cells to come in stages. Bacterial cells, for instance, don't have nuclei.
2007-10-05 11:52:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
You do realize that scientists have been synthesizing organic molecules from nonorganic substances found in volcanoes that were present around the time life first started... and they've been doing this for DECADES.
2007-10-05 11:51:58 · answer #8 · answered by xx. 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Sigh. If you know so little about the subject that you think what you describe is called evolution, what's the point in educating you?
CD
2007-10-05 11:52:52 · answer #9 · answered by Super Atheist 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
And picking up some dirt and *poof it's a man* is more plausible?
2007-10-05 11:51:27 · answer #10 · answered by Blue girl in a red state 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋