This is a rather basic question that I happen to find myself asking sometimes. What is your opinion? State which you think would've come first and give a good reason as to why. I don't know if there has already been a thread on this, but I apologize if there has.
I'm no expert on abiogenesis, but it makes a lot more sense to me. A chicken poofing into existence isn't possible. If I'm correct, abiogenisis is when life arises from inanimate matter through a series of chemical reactions. In the case of abiogenesis there is previous matter from which life is created. A chicken can't come to existence without previous matter however, so it makes no sense that a chicken could just appear out of no where.
I think evolution and abiogenesis played the most important roles in the growth and development of the first egg or chicken. I'm sorry, but there is no credible proof that God exists, so we will have to rely on science on this one. Abiogenesis created maybe the first basic forms of life that would eventually evolve into chickens. Abiogenesis does make sense if the process happens over a very long length of time, the exact number of years I wouldn't know. A chicken can't poof into existence, matter is simply not capable of producing a fully functioning organism in the blink of an eye as far as I know. So it has to be abiogenesis and evolution. Of course, I'm not an expert on any of these new terms that have been presented in this thread, so please tell me if I'm going wrong with their meanings.
. . .when taken at face value. I'd say abiogenesis makes more sense, due to the fact that amino acids *can* be made through chemical reactions that don't relate to life. That adds a lot of probability to the validity of abiogenesis - while the chicken poofing into existence has no science or logic to back it up whatsoever.
Once again, chemicals aren't living and also do not have a strong theory as to why they exist or how they react together. Of course this is the only thing scientists could come up with. Of course scientists won't name creationism a scientific theory because it cannot be proven physically. That is the reason they cane up with abiogenesis.
A little part to disprove abiogenesis; for a cell to be created, many molecules (and I'm talking COMPLEX) have to form all at once. Evolution is organic matter and whatnot gradually developing. Thus a cell could not be created all at once. So for a cell to happen, many complex molecules must all form all at once thus going against some laws of evolution. Matter cannot develop all at once.
A chicken can't come to existence without previous matter however, so it makes no sense that a chicken could just appear out of no where.
With that being said it would contradict your point. The egg also has to come from previous matter. Which that matter has to come from previous matter.
I'm sorry, but there is no credible proof that God exists, so we will have to rely on science on this one
I actually lol'd at this because there is no credible proof of abiogenesis either.
Uh you guys? USE YOUR BRAIN If the egg came first then it would have no one incubate it! Thus meaning that the egg wouldn't hatch. Therefore the egg would die.
lulz, you fail
the egg comes from a species which is not a chicken. the non-chicken incubates the egg. a chicken comes out of the egg.
I actually lol'd at this because there is no credible proof of abiogenesis either.
. . .but there is evidence it's correct. Did you read my link?
Once again, chemicals aren't living and also do not have a strong theory as to why they exist or how they react together. Of course this is the only thing scientists could come up with. Of course scientists won't name creationism a scientific theory because it cannot be proven physically. That is the reason they cane up with abiogenesis.
Of course chemicals aren't living. But amino acids are the chemical bases of life. - cells are mostly amino acids, other proteins and water.
Also. . .do you think scientists conspire against religion or something? You basically just said they thought up abiogenesis (DISCOVERED, NOT THOUGHT UP) in order to counter creationism. That is totally false.
And a theory isn't something that can be proven. Definition, as it pertains to science:
a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
~Merriam-Webster online dictionary
----------
A little part to disprove abiogenesis; for a cell to be created, many molecules (and I'm talking COMPLEX) have to form all at once. Evolution is organic matter and whatnot gradually developing. Thus a cell could not be created all at once. So for a cell to happen, many complex molecules must all form all at once thus going against some laws of evolution. Matter cannot develop all at once.
How does that disprove abiogenesis? It's still just a theory - it's possible that the molecules were spontaneously created due to a chemical reaction of nonliving matter, no? Not definite either way, but possible. Also, evolution doesn't deal with the creation of life.
The problem is some people just don't believe in evolution (I think it has more scientific proof but faith and all) it's a mater of opinion and/or ignorance.
