If evolution is real then how did none living matter become living matter?
lol. no where in any book or teaching does it say that non-living matter became living matter. it was microscopic matter that became bigger and bigger that it happened.and im sorry arachnid but there happens to be a distinction between living and non-living cause you explain it in your answer. dont contradict your dipictions without thinking. and tseirpeht what makes you think there was one mutation. incase you havent seen evolution of all animals or seen prehistoric ones. dont you think there has been many. and what one mutation are you talking about. genetics has shown we have several hundreds of mutations on earth right now just in humans. first of all we are actually on average taller than humans in the past. and where do dwarfism and giantism fit in. also known as mutations. if you are to argue a point you need to have facts and knowledge of the subject. not just look up what someone else has written on the net. if you want to argue it (argue meaning debate not fight) then I will be happy to. and that goes for anyone.
evolution is real, non living matter came to be through heat and certain chemical processes shortly after the formation of the earth- started with simple single cells that eventually formed a colony, which then evolved into more complex plant forms, which evolved into even more complex forms of life until eventually you have all you see today. it is a slow process- but we are still evolving, our bodies undergo possible evolution everyday. the development of a callous would be considered your body evolving to better suit your environment. it is a much better explanation than having a "ethereal being" breathe onto a lump of dirt and create mankind as we know it today. the fossil record simply doesn't show that that was the case- we evolved from many different forms of upright homonids to arrive at our present form.
There is no record of any evidence that even suggest non living matter can become living. But the "ethereal being" does make much more sense because at least there is an author of life. My question for evolutionist is how can all of this be created by chance in a window of billions of years. A billion years seems like a long time but for evolution you cant have just one mutation, there must be two mutations at the same time and they must be able to cross paths in order to procreate. Furthermore you would also have to explain how the parent would care for a mutated offspring over the other seemingly healthy ones.
Due to the volatile and volcanic nature of the young Earth, various chemical reactions began to take place which would result in the creation of new compounds and elements. One of the family of compounds created over time were the amino acids, organic compounds which are the building blocks of life.
Earth today bears little resemblance to the early Earth, in which life developed from it's raw ingredients: volatiles and organics. Understanding the mechanisms and the prebiotic chemical processes that lead to life, however, is complicated.
There's no distinction between 'living' and 'non-living' matter - life is simply a specific arrangement of ordinary atoms in a form that is self-sustaining and self-reproducing.
That said, depending on who you ask, Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, just its development. The origin of life is a subject called 'Abiogenesis', and it's much more poorly understood than Evolution.