Question:
Atheists: How could this happen by chance?
2015-02-16 13:13:21 UTC
Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms.

This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell.

The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance.
26 answers:
2015-02-16 13:40:24 UTC
In reading your question I'm wondering who you're trying to convince. Intelligent design is just creationism in disguise. Creationism is ludicrous. It isn't supported by a single shred of evidence. No mainstream Christian denomination even believes the creation myth. They all support evolution. Just because science can't yet answer a question doesn't mean there's no answer. We know that complex organisms exist including the primates who pose and answer questions here on y!a. We know there was at one time no life on Earth. Therefore, we know that life did evolve. What we cannot answer yet is how this happened. But it doesn't mean there isn't an answer because of course there is. You can't simply insert a god where answers remain unanswered. There was no designer. If there was the designer would need to be improbably far more complex still. If there's a designer why so many flaws in the design? A designer complicated enough to design us should've been able to produced unflawed designs.
craig
2015-02-17 15:00:37 UTC
The question you have asked has little to do with evolution. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution only takes place once life has begun. You are talking about abiogenesis, which is in no way attached to Darwinian evolution. Evolution is a well established scientific theory with mountains of evidence to back it up. Abiogenesis on the other hand is still pretty poorly understood. However we may look at things like the formation of snowflakes from water dropletts, mineral crystals from minerals and pyrite cubes from pyrite and have a fine example of how complexity may arise randomly and naturally without the guidance of an outside intelligence. Once abiogenesis has been achieved evolution may begin which is anything but random. Evolution relys not on random chance but the guidence of natural selection which will naturally weed out the bad and advance what is good for the organism. If that means greater complexity that is what nature and the organism will prefer. If complexity is no longer nessisary complex structures may be done away with. We can see this in ourselves. The reptilian mandible has multiple bones where the mammalian has but one. Since we evolved from a reptilian ansestor we also have the extra reptilian jaw bones but the have shrunk considerably and moved back into the inner ear. Evolution by natural selection found a more preferable and in this case economic way for our jaw to be made and it made the proper enhancements over time.
?
2015-02-17 00:50:51 UTC
Wrong, wrong worng. Get some up to date data.



Yeah. Firstly, all organinc and non organic entities are made up from the same chemicals. If not, point to one element on the periodic table unique to organic life.



The creation of the necessary proto proteins to create proteins forms in laboratory experiments within hours.



Man has already manufactured the genome of the most simple bacteria in a laboratory replaced the genetic material in a living cell and the cell continued to live. Time estimate to creating life from scratch = 10 - 20 years.



By observing the genomes of all the great apes (including man) we have discovered 17 (random attaching) retro-viruses common to all in exactly the same position in their junk DNA. To get a retro-virus in your DNA you need to be infected and the infection occur to a sperm which is fertilised (a rather rare event).



There are four great Apes and the odds of those great apes not being related based on retro-virus evidence is the same as four people going to a lottery office and picking the same 17 numbers off a card with 3 billion numbers. Or, vastly more options than the number of molecules in all the oceans of earth. Man is an evolved species from a coomon ancestor of Man, Gorillas, Chipanzees abd Orangutangs.



Or, to put it another way, to prove that man isn't, a cousin of the great apes is basically the same as the chances life formed naturally from chemicals i.e. chemical combining odds are not high but inevitable.



What you theists fail to realise is that, since Kepplar, it has been observed there may be trillions of life supporting planets in the universe and on each one trillions of trillions of chemical reactions are occuring trillions of times a day. It's not only possible, it's inevitable given that the chemical bonds form naturally i.e. nothing like the parts of a 747.
Limesticks
2015-02-16 13:24:46 UTC
"This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous"

I am waiting for your proof.



"In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals"

And this only shows scientists are unable to create mentioned molecules. This does in no way prove it never happened. Also keep in mind that the first self duplicating molecules had tens of millions of years to naturally be created.



"The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter."

No, it does not. The theory of evolution explains how existing life evolves over time. Abiogenesis is about organic life coming from inorganic matter.



"That is impossible"

Again, I am waiting for you to substantiate this claim.



"The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell."

Which, again, means scientists can't replicate nature. This does not prove it didn't happen, only that scientists can't make it happen in their laboratory. If a scientist is unable to create an earthquake in a laboratory, does that mean earthquakes can't happen naturally either? That's silly.



"This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance."

That's an argument by ignorance. Just because you, I, anyone cannot grasp how life could've happened by natural processes, doesn't mean it didn't happen by natural processes. Many years ago nobody could grasp the earth rotating around the sun. Does that mean the earth doesn't rotate around the sun? Most people can't grasp how Einstein's relativity theory works. Does that mean Einstein was wrong (hint: he wasn't)?



Considering your 747 analogy: what about your proposed designer? Shouldn't he be at least as complex as what he designed? Shouldn't this designer require an even more complex designer? An intelligent designer would be the ultimate boeing 747. Proposing a designer as the creator for life solves nothing.



You have made zero convincing arguments. At least you tried.
?
2015-02-16 13:37:09 UTC
"The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter."



Wrong. Typical creationist straw men fallacy.



The Theory of Evolution does NOT CLAIM THAT. Evolutionary theory describes the processes by which life diversified and evolved to fill all the ecological niches available to it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

..."that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible."



Wrong. Typical creationist lie - deny that something happened when that very fact is staring you in the face.



The fact that we're here puts the lie to your claim. When the earth was formed, there was no life. There is life now. Something obviously happened.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell."



Wrong. Typical creationist appeal to incredulity.



The study of how life got started is Abiogenesis, and it is a relatively new area of research. The Miller-Urey experiments were barely 70 years ago.



The top scientists in the world have not yet cracked the problem, but they're working on it. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they won't be able to.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"... this is too complex to appear by chance"



Wrong. Typical creationist lying with math. I'm too tired to go into why this particular ******** is wrong, but it's been debunked completely.



Why do you creationists keep lying?
?
2015-02-16 13:22:52 UTC
Here's the thing you're overlooking. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. Back 200 years ago man couldn't fly...that 747 hadn't been invented...yet. Fast forward to today and mankind has discovered flight and those 747's are just flying whipstitch all over the globe. Now to your comment that man can't create life. I agree completely with you, man hasn't been able to create life....yet. Can you say with complete certainty that science won't create life tomorrow? You can not since no one can predict the future. Sort of shoots your theory that intelligent design is the only thing capable of creating life. You can believe a thing that no one can prove exists and no one has ever seen created life if you want. I'm not falling for that one.
?
2015-02-16 13:22:25 UTC
Just as easily a stray comet or meteor could have dropped the most basic life form on our planet. We don't know yet what happened to kick-start our planet off.



All I'll say on that matter: When God let's you know how it happened then please feel free to share with the rest of us.



Oh and if you say it was Adam and Eve, then where did the woman from the forest come from who coupled with Cain?
?
2015-02-17 04:01:28 UTC
"The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter."

No it dont



"That is impossible."

Says who?



Now we get to the dumb bit

"The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell. "

200 years ago man could not travel faster than a running horse (around 25mph) - 50 years later he could.

120 years ago man could not fly- now he can

70 years ago man could not travel faster than sound - now he can

50 years ago man could not travel into space - now he can

20 years ago man could not manipulate DNA - now he can



Contrary to what creationists want - science does not stand still.



"The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design"

Ok- now prove it was "intelligent design", instead of just claiming it was

And the emphasis is on PROVE , not just assume.
2015-02-16 14:21:46 UTC
Guess you didn't get the memo. Intelligent Design is dead. It had no evidence, no predictions, and wasn't part of any scientific methodology or field. RIP.

Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html



Twenty Years After Darwin on Trial, ID is Dead

http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/29/twenty-years-after-darwin-on-t/



The New Rallying Cry: "Intelligent Design Is Dead!"

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/help_some_leadi053731.html



Jason Rosenhouse pronounces intelligent design dead

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/jason-rosenhouse-pronounces-intelligent-design-dead/



Intelligent Design is Dead! Long Live Creationism?

http://vq.vassar.edu/issues/2007/03/features/intelligent-design-is-dead.html



Intelligent Design on Trial

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community
?
2015-02-16 13:21:55 UTC
A century ago scientists believed... Yeah the credibility was lost right there. Further more lightning striking a pond to create life was never a theory. Rad Jesus pick up a book that isn't inside your church.
doddboysdad
2015-02-17 05:10:51 UTC
Didn't the church stop people from learning science several hundred years ago and think that the earth was the centre of the univierse... wasn't that offical church stance for centuries, not allowing the deveolpment of Science or learning... wow, wonder where humanity would be now, if religion hadn't been such a ****, and stopped us from using our brains.
Vincent G
2015-02-16 16:15:17 UTC
It did.



End of story.



And in a few years, we will have totally synthetic life.



Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_biology



What are you going to argue about and claim when this happens?
Johnny
2015-02-16 13:21:06 UTC
Tthe first life must have been simpler than a cell. A complex god existing by chance is what is really impossible. He must have been designed!
?
2015-02-16 14:28:46 UTC
Science is yet to understand most energy , you can not light a light bulb by rubbing two sticks together , give em time we are hardly out of the caves.



more info type in marc lambert and God
ndmagicman
2015-02-16 13:56:29 UTC
Your question and your reasoning is wrong right from the start.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It makes no assumptions about the origin of life.
Nowpower
2015-02-16 13:23:22 UTC
It really is amazing, having occurred without a shred of evidence any deity was involved. So you may say it is impossible, but realize you are speaking to the impossible when you say it.
PaulCyp
2015-02-16 13:33:42 UTC
Since inorganic matter existed for billions of years before living matter did, the latter MUST have come from what pre-existed it.



Christian biologist
2015-02-16 13:51:10 UTC
This has been established as a reliable fact but people resist its inescapableness.
?
2015-02-16 13:22:24 UTC
You're over thinking it. If evolution were real, then all the horseflies would have evolved into horses by now.
2015-02-16 13:16:56 UTC
First of you have no idea what evolution is secondly there were millions of lighting strikes on that pond. The first life came from heat, organic matter and time.
2015-02-16 13:15:51 UTC
I believe in evolution because *you* have evolved into one of the better Poes here. I can remember when you were just a lowly troll...
2015-02-16 13:17:21 UTC
Complexity is not a proof of inteligent design or magic
Brigalow Bloke
2015-02-16 13:36:57 UTC
You silly twisted boy.
2015-02-16 13:39:36 UTC
in Atheism stardust brought itself to life in primordial soup

that's their story

and they're sticking to it no matter what evidence disproves it.
Are You Sure?
2015-02-16 14:06:35 UTC
Complexity doesn't imply design, nor does design imply complexity, but thanks for playing.
2015-02-16 13:16:42 UTC
How to scientifically test abiogenesis: place rock in water and observe until it grows legs and walks away.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...