You don't need God to make life from matter

Canada
December 13, 2012 3:04pm CST
There was a new paper that was published yesterday in the journal "Physical Biology", showing that life = metabolism. Through this, all you need to get metabolism in carbon, aka, going from inorganic carbon compounds to organic life, is a large enough, changing environment that has the proper pieces... these being bodies of water and active volcanoes. It's a very complex system, you can't just put carbon dioxide into a bag and have it come out with organic compounds, but here, we're talking about trillions of interactions between compounds, which is bound to eventually put pieces together that will start forming metabolism, and evolution will begin. This is just one of many studies that have shown that it is possible, and in some cases, extremely likely, that you can have non-organic compounds turn into life, given a large enough system and enough time. That shows that you don't need a God to start it up. Of course, this doesn't hold anything against the concept that God started the universe and made the system and just let it go, but it does go against the idea that God made earth and people and animals the way they are now. Creation isn't needed, and why would these systems be there, if everything was just created as is?
14 responses
@1hopefulman (33555)
• Canada
17 Dec 12
And there was a paper that was written 3500 years ago that says different. Which paper will we believe?
1 person likes this
• India
13 Dec 12
Hello dear you needs more research work on this topic.Because without God ALLAH we are not able to doing anything.We can doing everything with the help of God ALLAH.For you example i correct you because every thing happens can depend different factors which makes by GOD ALLAH.Simply you are showing any idea but it never work when you should work on its.Science is a knowledge which provides the basic information in particular fields.
• Canada
13 Dec 12
But, this direction of science is in bio-chemisty, and the study is directly towards the origin of life. I've read through a bunch of the Qur'an, and it doesn't talk about organic biology like this, how life can form from inorganic matter. It's a book that says, Allah is great, and if something happened, Allah did it... but this is just a book... I'm talking about real scientific studies. I trust the studies much more. And besides, this doesn't say anything towards the idea that some magical being started everything up, it just shows that organic can come from non-organic. You can still say that Allah put those pieces there, it's just further away from when life started here on earth.
@samar54 (2456)
• Egypt
14 Dec 12
"but this is just a book" that is not true , Quran not just a book , if you is a scientist , read all the Quran , you will find in it many scientific truths ,the human know it from some years ,try , you don't lose any thing : http://www.e-quran.com/language/index.html
• Canada
14 Dec 12
Yep, the Qur'an has plenty of directions in science that they were learning at the time. The time that Islam came about and the book was written was a huge time for science. The unfortunate part, is the dark ages that came after it, where people, especially the christians, didn't believe in science and were told that it was harrisy and witchcraft, and the science didn't come back again until around the 1700s.
@Naseem00 (1998)
• Pakistan
14 Dec 12
Yeah and all these inorganic carbon compounds went themselves from inorganic to organic. Trillions of interactions between compounds happened themselves without anybody planning/controlling/executing them. Sounds very logical... don't you agree? Just when last time you woke up and you have your breakfast ready without anybody preparing it? After all that does not require trillions of interactions.
• Canada
14 Dec 12
Yes, it is logical to have interactions between compounds that happened themselves. It's bound to happen in a universe like ours, there's a far far far greater chance of it happening, then not happening. The only thing that is really still up in the air, is the beginning of the universe. How did that happen? How did the universe come from just energy, to matter and energy? There are some ideas on how it could have worked, but nothing has been completely proven yet, or had enough evidence around it to show it's true, so we're still sitting on the fence. And yes, having everything working so perfectly to spontaneously making a breakfast, would take trillions of interactions, and those would have to be in such a precise order, that its nearly impossible to happen. What I'm talking about, is more like taking trillions of marbles, of about 10 different varieties, and throwing them down a chute. All you would need is combinations of about 6 of the right ones grouping together, and that would be a representation of life forming. It is bound to happen in this universe, on it's own.
@samar54 (2456)
• Egypt
14 Dec 12
"The only thing that is really still up in the air, is the beginning of the universe." I think I tell you in my discussion : who created the universe ?
• Canada
14 Dec 12
And I say, What created the universe?
@robspeakman (1705)
13 Dec 12
It still surprises me that there is any doubt in the scientific reasoning of creation... I thought we would have moved on from believing in a GOD by now - We are supposedly more intelligent than our goat herding ancestors
• Canada
13 Dec 12
You would think! But there are a lot of religious people that are really pushed to deny anything that goes against their teachings. I wonder how many studies it will take before the religious people will go the other way? Like, if we could make organic life from non-organic matter in space, where there is no way there was anything mucking up the system, then would the religious people believe it? I kinda doubt it, but gotta keep pushing forward.
@urbandekay (18312)
14 Dec 12
Sounds interesting, do you have a link to it? thanks urban
• Canada
14 Dec 12
Here's the article I read about this; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121212205918.htm
@urbandekay (18312)
15 Dec 12
Having read the article they aren't saying what you claim. All they do is speculate about a possible approach. all the best, urban
@iuliuxd (4453)
• Romania
15 Dec 12
I think Christoph understood more than they wrote on that article.
@momof3kids (1903)
• Singapore
14 Dec 12
I stumbled upon your response as why religious people wont stop being religious or something like that. Well I wonder the same thing about you but I also wonder why it bothers you so much.
• Canada
14 Dec 12
I see extreme religion is a negative thing. People who are so devout to a specific religion that they deny any other possibilities. My big goal is to talk with people about it, so that maybe they'll open up a bit more, and consider other directions. And, I'm a big science nut... I really love reading about new ways of science, or studying the world around us. So, when I can put the two together, I get a real interest in it, and it's fun to start discussions on here about it. I know I'll get a lot of responses. A funny part is, it seems if I'm more direct, and in some ways, negative towards religion, then I get more people writing on it. I like getting bunches of responses and discussions. And thanks for the reply!
@samar54 (2456)
• Egypt
15 Dec 12
Extremism does not help, but if you mean by :" a specific religion that they deny any other possibilities." that religion does not call for science and knowledge, you are mistaken .
• Singapore
16 Dec 12
Yes I agree with my fellow muslim, you have to be specific with which religion you are referring to and not generalise all religions to be the same. It all comes down to our own purpose in life. If there are no rules (which all religions provide) what is stopping people from killing themselves? If a man is suffering from disease or hunger why should he continue life? If really there is no God, what hope should he base on? A scientist? And when you write down your theories against Islamic explanations, how do you pick your answer? How do you know its right? Scientists are people. People make mistakes all the time. How do you know if or when a scientist is honest and not base his theories on gaining worldly possessions? Thank you for being so polite though. My questions are based on my curiousity on how you tick.
@mr_pearl (5037)
• India
14 Dec 12
Hi.. It is a very true statement... It has been proved that millions of years ago, some carbon particles united to form basic life form- ameoba! After a few more million years, few amoebas came together, miraculously indeed, and formed up the first multicellular organism... Then began the real 'evolution'.. I'm not sure what role did God play, but I still have faith in the Lord Almighty....
@Devilova (5396)
• Indonesia
15 Dec 12
Then how come to be proved, thing that have happened in millions years ago? Any whitness? They only use probability, that not prove anything.
• Canada
11 Jan 13
mr_pearl, who proved this? How? What you're saying is basically a load of bovine feces! Ameobas aren't even the most primitive life, they're eukaryotes: bacteria and archaea have much simpler cells. Even those are very complicated and it's hard to see how one could just spring into existence. There's also a big mystery about how multicellular life started as all the multicellular animal phyla appeared at the same time.
• India
16 Mar 13
on any case, I am not going to ingnore God that is creator of everything. creator of your brain to find new things daily and think and study. if our study wants to go against God, I do not see any value on that research or study.
• Canada
11 Jan 13
What this article is saying is completely different from what Christoph says here. It's saying that instead of concentration on chemistry, how DNA, proteins etc. can come into existence, science should look at the information of life. The problem here is that you need chemistry to store information and to execute that information for the organism to function, don't you? There's no known way a cell can just form, it can only be produced from other cells. Can life start as a ghost, an idea, existing in isolation with no physical form and that somehow takes some amino acids and things and fashions it into a cell? If that is possible then we're getting very close to some sort of intelligent design theory and therefore finding a way to reconcile creation with evolution. Therefore this approach, if it has any merit, might actually have the opposite effect to what Christoph claims.
• St. Peters, Missouri
15 Dec 12
I think this is a perfect explanation of why the Bible can't be taken literally. I'm Christian and believe everything the Bible says. However, I also believe that when read literally, the Bible doesn't make sense. For this very reason! I believe God didn't just make us as we are, nowhere in the Bible does it say it happened in a poof and from nothing. If it's accepted that 1) interpretation is needed when reading the Bible, 1) a little thought process is needed when reading the Bible, and 1) that things that are not explicitly stated could have happened, it's easy to see how God could have used the evolutionary system to create - he didn't just create as is.
@Devilova (5396)
• Indonesia
15 Dec 12
I prefer to choose the simple rather than the complex. For me, millions already too much, while trillions could kill me. Could they explain it one by one, that trillion!? Just give me 1% of that trillion!! I'll wait in here!! At meantime, let me stick with my God. Allah subhana wa ta'ala.
@bluesea3 (167)
• Indonesia
14 Dec 12
It's very crowded here. I'm very interested to join. What will we discuss, atheism, islam, or christian? Just on my mind, this discussion won't be finished with relief if everybody get their own focus here. I've an idea, why do we just focusing on the "atheism on scientific biology"? My answer of this topic is "my religion is mine, your religion is yours. I won't force you to follow me, and so you are. I will fight with anybody who force their religion to me and i think you will do the same like me." You may use your opinion, and so do i. My main words are " whatever you do, whatever your say, whatever your invention, Allah S.W.T will show the true. No matter you will see the proof or not". I still don't understand, there're so many mad scientists who are very sure about their intelligence, but they still cannot calculate when they die, where it will be, and how it be properly. Moreover, Would they try to get their life back when they have been die? Please, i will be very amazed if you could do that. I will wait, even may be it will be the best of the hugest invention on the world of science.
@Cetz912 (65)
• Indonesia
14 Dec 12
if I rethink over n over again.. some entity must have created earth long long time ago.. world cant created by its own.. correct? and need someone to maintain it and working within it. i have to admit, science (i put "logic thinking" in this term) really can't shake hand with the religious point of view. for exp : which one has been created first? Chicken or Eggs.. -some religious pov will answer we cant specifically tell because it God's will to create, could be egg?? -if we think logically.. Chicken could be created first.. without interaction from male & female how eggs popup? he he.. Cheers!
@Adoniah (7515)
• United States
13 Dec 12
The best part so far about civilization is that we can agree to disagree on stuff. It is when one group says it is this way and only this way that problems arise...When that happens, deep thought is obliterated and either science is destroyed or other beliefs are destroyed. Both have importance. Most think that a "Creator Entity" at least 'kicked all of this into motion' and then let it run its course. Others say it was done without any outside intervention. I like the ability and freedom to cogitate on the matter myself.