Life began in the bang bang that created and seeded the universe.

From that single event the basic building blocks were flung to the far ends of the universe. As the various pieces of matter and atomic particles began to combine the first indicators of life were born. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that meteors impacting the earth during its primordial formative years are how the building blocks spread here.

 From Wikipedia (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life)

The origin of life on earth is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.

It is generally agreed that all life today evolved by common descent from a single primitive lifeform. It is not known how this early form came about, but scientists think it was a natural process which took place perhaps 3,900 million years ago. This is in accord with the philosophy of naturalism: only natural causes are admitted. 

It is not known whether metabolism or genetics came first. The main hypothesis which supports genetics first is the RNA world hypothesis, and the one which supports metabolism first is the protein world hypothesis

Another big problem is how cells develop. All existing forms of life are built out of cells.

Melvin Calvin, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, wrote a book on the subject, and so did Alexander Oparin.  What links most of the early work on the origin of life is the idea  that before life began there must have been a process of chemical  change. Another question which has been discussed by J.D. Bernal and others is the origin of the cell membrane. By concentrating the chemicals in one place, the cell membrane performs a vital function.

Many religions teach that life did not evolve spontaneously, but was deliberately created by a god. Such theories are a part of creationism.  Some '"old earth" creationists believe in a slower creation that is  generally more compatible with the known sciences of today. Other "new  earth" creationists claim this happened within the last few thousand  years, which is much more recent than the fossil record suggests. The lack of evidence for such views means that almost all scientists do not accept them. 


Earliest claimed life on Earth

The earliest claimed lifeforms are fossilized microorganisms (or microfossils). They were found in iron and silica-rich rocks which were once  hydrothermal vents in the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt of Quebec, Canada

These rocks are as old as 4.28 billion years. The tubular forms they contain are shown in a report.[8]  If this is the oldest record of life on Earth, it suggests "an almost  instantaneous emergence of life" after oceans formed 4.4 billion years  ago.[9][10][11] According to Stephen Blair Hedges, "If life arose relatively quickly on Earth… then it could be common in the universe".[12] 

Previous earliest

A scientific study from 2002 showed that geological formations of stromatolites 3.45 billion years old contain fossilized cyanobacteria.  At the time it was widely agreed that stromatolites were oldest known  lifeform on Earth which had left a record of its existence. Therefore,  if life originated on Earth, this happened sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied, and 3.5 billion years ago. This is the background to the latest discovery discussed above. 

Earliest evidence of life comes from the Isua supercrustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. This is because a high level of the lighter isotope of carbon  is found there. Living things uptake lighter isotopes because this  takes less energy. Carbon entering into rock formations has a  concentration of elemental δ13C of about −5.5. of 12C, biomass has a δ13C  of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in  the rocks. With this evidence, Mojzis suggested that life existed on the  planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.

A few scientists think life might have been carried from planet to planet by the transport of spores. This idea, now known as panspermia, was first put forward by Arrhenius.

I am personally a believer of panspermia as to how life began both here on Earth and elsewhere in the universe.


No one can specially tell you how life began. There are both scientific theories on the beginning of life and religious accounts. Both the scientific and religious accounts have conflicting views about life. Theories like evolution, the big bang, etc, all gives the scientific account of the beginning of life. But if you look deeply into those theories you would dis cover that theI'd accounts are not that complete.

The religious people believe that the Almighty God, creates the world and everything in it. it is a General religious belief that life starts and ends in God the supreme being that controls the earth. Though this account seem to have no scientific proof because it is faith based, but it seems more valid than all the scientific theories about the beginning of life.

Man was believed to be created by God and given breath, soul and spirit by God. All these are truly present in a man. The scientific theories about the beginning of life don't explain much about man's spiritual nature but the religious accounts explain both man's spiritual and physical nature. Though most people find it hard believing the religious account of the beginning of life because there seem to be no physical proof.

Though the scientific accounts also have no physical proofs just some theories to back up their claim.