Creatism Or Evolution

okay this is just a simple question.I was having a

discussion about if we were created or not,and my friend

told me that the law of biogenesis states this: Non-animate

(non-living) matter cannot create animate (living)

matter.And I was wondering if anyone knows that this is

true?

Thank GOD someone brought this subject up.

You’re welcome, my child.

What Jarbaby means (I think) is that this one has been done and done again ad nauseam here (if you search the Great debates forum for ‘creation’ you’ll find a million (well maybe not) threads where this has been argued from every possible angle)

One thing I would say however, it’s up to your friend making these bold claims to come up with the evidence supporting them (like where did these ‘laws of biogenesis’ come from?)

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards by the way.

Strictly speaking, the law of biogensis states that all organisms have a genetic ancestry involving other organisms. It is important to note that this law was proposed in opposition to the theory of spontaneous generation, which stated that organisms could come into being spontaneously from non-organic sources (a common belief, for example, was that individual rags in a pile could spontaneously become rats - because, you see, one might see a pile of rags one day, and the next, see a couple rats “nesting” in it. The “obvious” conclusion, then, was that some of the rags became those rats).

It was not intended to explain the origin of life itself, but rather the origins of fully-formed organisms.

In other words, even when Pasteur ran around disproving
spontaneous generation, he was aware that this ‘law’ had
not been true for all time and space.

He was proving that relatively complex life cannot develop
in less than geologic time periods.

Or, better, that leaving a piece of meat out to rot causes maggots to spontaneously form. (When, in fact, they hatched from eggs that flies laid when you weren’t looking.)

So basically your saying that theory of spontaneous generation doesn’t really matter because its not true?

That and the “law of biogenesis” has nothing to do with evolution or the question of what actually caused biogenesis (the beginning of Life As We Know It.)

so basically what your saying is the theory of spontaneous generation,doesn’t really matter because its not true?Theres no real way for something to come out of nothing?

Did you mean “Cretinism or Evolution”?

whatever1 wrote:

“so basically what your saying is the theory of spontaneous generation,doesn’t really matter because its not true?Theres no real way for something to come out of nothing?”

Gee-- I wonder where he/she is going with this???

whatever1, as mentioned earlier, this topic has been pretty much done to death over in the Great Debates forum. I strongly advise you to hie thee over there and use the search function to bring up some of the threads that discussed this topic. Use “creationism” or “evolution” as the search term.

If you don’t feel like that, then pay a visit to the TalkOrigins website. They have a number of excellent FAQs there, and the one that seems to fit your OP the best (as far as I can interpret it) is the titledThe Probability of Abiogenesis.

What I want to know is the law of biogenesis true?Because if it is,then that would mean something had to create us,which would mean there would have to be a god right?

No, that’s not what is being said.

The Law of Biogenesis states, roughly, that all life must come from pre-existing life. This is in contrast to the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which claims that life can spontaneously form from non-living matter. The Theory of Spontaneous Generation is refuted by demonstrating that the theory only arises out of imperfect observation, and that if a situation is carefully watched, it can be observed that living organisms always occur as a result of some biological process involving other existing forms of life.

Neither the Law of Biogensis or the Theory of Spontaneous Generation have anything to do with evolution. Both principles relate to the formation of life on short (and in the case of the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, instant) time scales; neither say a thing about what can happen over long periods of time. Just because living organisms cannot instantly form out of non-living material does not in any way preclude the possibility of life forming from non-living matter over a long period of time. In fact, this latter scenario is precisely what some abiogenesis theories posit.

Possibly. Depends what you mean by the law of biogenesis. If you take it to mean, “Can life come only from life?” then no. Obviously, I can eat something which is not alive (although it may have been at one time) and my body can turn parts of it into parts of me, which are alive.

That is incorrect. It is possible (logically speaking) that life has always existed, and needs no starting point. It is also possible that everything is actually alive. (I’m not advocating these views, just pointing out that there are other possibilities.)

If life can only come from life, then if God created Man, then God must be alive. But if God is alive, then He must have been created by Something else that was alive. And that Something must in turn … well, you get the idea. Eventually one would have to say that either life in some form has always been around, or that life can in some way arise from non-life.

Have I at all helped to clarify things?

Remember, there’s a world of difference between a strand of self-replicating DNA/RNA spontaneously forming from the combination of some amino acids (thus starting ALL life from “nothing”) and dirty rags turning into a complex creature like a rat.

Sorry. My point was:

(1) The Law of Biogenesis is true

(2) It doesn’t really have anything to do with the beginning of all life on the planet

<smacking self in forehead>
Damn! I never thought of that before!
Thanks a lot, whatever1.
Now run along. I’ll see you in church.
But first, uh, anyone know where I can get a mark of the beast™ removed?

Silly me! I thought you were looking for a factual answer regarding the Law of Biogenesis, not looking to start another creation vs. evolution debate. You’ve been given the answers several times in this thread, but I’ll repost the answers to this question again, in the hopes that they will sink in: