What caused life to come into existence?

[MarkDuffy]

Hell, we can easily carry this to the extreme.
Why create man at all?

Love. He wanted to share the gift of life and created us.

How could God share something like life he doesn't himself have? If God does not need life, why should we?

If we understand much of anything about a God with powers to create a universe like ours, God wouldn't be much of a God would he? The wise person of faith accepts that. The scoffers try to pretend they know more than God. I'm pretty sure that won't end as a draw.

Circular answers have never impressed me.

The evidence shows that God disappeared as soon as the tough questions (ie science) were created.

So where did the stuff of the universe come from as well as the conditions that caused life to form?

The original stuff (cosmology) is a big problem. Life appears to be the result of physics & chemistry of the original stuff.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

a fortuitous combination of CARBON atoms-----oxygen atoms and very ubiquitous hydrogen atoms----BUMPED
into each other for eons and eons------with a lot of ENERGY thrown in. ORGANIC MOLECULES came about.

the complex molecules began to wiggle. ------abiogenesis did 'happen'

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You parroted a silly response. The issue is not the EXISTENCE of organic molecules----the issue
is the POTENTIAL of organic molecules for such developments as aggregation and progression to
self replication and-----SO ON---------open up yer mine---------after a billion years you developed something
like CHEMO RECEPTORS-------and those-----in some families (perhaps not yours) continued on to
aggregated into a rostral clump that -------well--nevah mind----your rostrum stopped developing at that point

I can understand why you have a desperate need to defend your nutty-professor mentors. That is in my own self-interest, too. If you had to think for yourself, you would get migraines and would sue me for causing them. All you have to do is hire a lawyer who is skilled at discrediting personal responsibility.

hillary is such a lawyer. she has nothing better to do right now (BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIANS), so I'm sure she would take your case.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

What cause life to come into existence? Sex.

Naw, sex is an advanced feature of life.

 

[irosie91]

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You parroted a silly response. The issue is not the EXISTENCE of organic molecules----the issue
is the POTENTIAL of organic molecules for such developments as aggregation and progression to
self replication and-----SO ON---------open up yer mine---------after a billion years you developed something
like CHEMO RECEPTORS-------and those-----in some families (perhaps not yours) continued on to
aggregated into a rostral clump that -------well--nevah mind----your rostrum stopped developing at that point

I can understand why you have a desperate need to defend your nutty-professor mentors. That is in my own self-interest, too. If you had to think for yourself, you would get migraines and would sue me for causing them. All you have to do is hire a lawyer who is skilled at discrediting personal responsibility.

hillary is such a lawyer. she has nothing better to do right now (BECAUSE OF THE RUSSIANS), so I'm sure she would take your case.

are you talking to me? (rosie) I do get headaches-----not so much as when I was young------Now I get headaches from red wine.
I am not a migraineur.
Do you treat migraine? Are people still using Botox ( ---it was a thing a few decades ago-------I got the impression it
was an EXCUSE to treat wrinkles and bill insurance)

 

[MarkDuffy]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

you are by using the god fudge factor.

You are lost. Totally lost.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

you are by using the god fudge factor.

You are lost. Totally lost.

No I'm fully aware that we do not know many things about the universe and I have explained why we may never know and I can accept that without using a magic man in the sky to explain things.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

you are by using the god fudge factor.

You are lost. Totally lost.

No I'm fully aware that we do not know many things about the universe and I have explained why we may never know and I can accept that without using a magic man in the sky to explain things.

Still lost. I don't believe in gods

 

[Skull Pilot]

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

you are by using the god fudge factor.

You are lost. Totally lost.

No I'm fully aware that we do not know many things about the universe and I have explained why we may never know and I can accept that without using a magic man in the sky to explain things.

Still lost. I don't believe in gods

Well since I wasn't quoting you when I used the term god fudge factor I really don't know how you thought I implied you did believe in gods

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

Well, one of two things are **is** going to happen when we die. One, our consciousness survives our physical death, we meet God and understand all of the secrets of the universe and know that God did indeed create the universe.

Two, we die and cease to exist without ever "knowing" anything.

Illogically and aggressively, you only allow two possibilities. Then you continue to play tricks by making one that is gloomy and the one you're preaching is full of joy.

What about the Hindu doctrine that we migrate to a newborn person after death? If we have been a good person in a low caste, we are elevated to a higher caste in our next life. Another alternative is that we are reborn in an unreachable planet, with full knowledge of our past life.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

Ah, but we are on the verge of extending the physical limitations our present brains. With our own inventions, not the intervention of some deity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here are the elements of the universe

Life primarily relies on Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon and Nitrogen
Put them together in the right order and you get the molecules necessary to create life

That we know of.

Don't forget that we know nothing about 95% of the matter and energy that comprise the known universe.

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

Well, one of two things are **is** going to happen when we die. One, our consciousness survives our physical death, we meet God and understand all of the secrets of the universe and know that God did indeed create the universe.

Two, we die and cease to exist without ever "knowing" anything.

Illogically and aggressively, you only allow two possibilities. Then you continue to play tricks by making one that is gloomy and the one you're preaching is full of joy.

What about the Hindu doctrine that we migrate to a newborn person after death? If we have been a good person in a low caste, we are elevated to a higher caste in our next life. Another alternative is that we are reborn in an unreachable planet, with full knowledge of our past life.

Thus far, the ideas I have seen concerning a life after death are simply the imagining of the individual stating them. No evidence of such exists that I know of.

 

[Old Rocks]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

That we haven't figured out yet the how doesn't mean it didn't happen. Like gravity, the explanation existed before we discovered it.

I realize what you are saying, but it is a bad analogy. We still have not an adequate explanation of gravity, but we do have equations that describe it's effects.

 

[Old Rocks]

Per this article, modern science hasn't the faintest clue how life came into existence. Perhaps someone can chime and explain how the author got it wrong and explain how life came to be. Thanks in advance.

What Caused Life to Come into Existence?

It has become axiomatic that life naturally evolved out of nonliving materials billions of years ago. Given enough time and the chemical opportunity, living cells self-assemble.

However, the experts on the development of complex molecules from simpler ones, the synthetic chemists, do not know how this process actually occurs. There are no known pathways to create the components that make up a living cell from nonliving matter. They have no idea how amino acids (the building blocks of proteins and enzymes), nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA), saccharides (also called carbohydrates or sugars, the scaffolding for DNA and RNA, energy sources, and much more), and lipids (the main constituents of cell membranes) can be formed naturally on a prebiotic earth, especially before the formation of biological enzymes, to catalyze many of the requisite chemical reactions.

Life arising naturally out of nonliving materials not only cannot be proven, it contradicts synthetic chemistry’s practices, which comprise of very strict purity and environmental controls as well as experimental and sequential methodology—the exact opposite of what happens in nature—because contamination, water, sunlight, oxygen, heat, and impurities all degrade complex molecules or prevent them from forming.

So desperate are the abiogenesis proponents to avoid the fact that we have no idea how a living, self-replicating cell can spontaneously come into existence from a sterile chemical soup that they exaggerate any creation of the “precursors” of life as proof of abiogenesis, despite the fact that the precursors are more similar to a “rivet” whereas the simplest living cell is more comparable to an “airplane.”

Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.

It very well may be that life can come from nonlife, but the real experts in the field have no idea how it can be done.
To visualize the difficulty synthetic chemists face when developing their target molecules, imagine one needs to get through a massive three-dimensional maze to reach the target. But this maze doesn’t have just one entrance, it has six, eight, or a dozen isolated passageways, depending on the isomers or chemical structure of the target molecule. Each time a sequence reaction is needed, the path splits into the same number of permutations of the reaction. If a reaction has ten possible outcomes, then the passageway splits into ten paths. If it has fifty, then the passageway splits into fifty paths. This then results in potentially millions of potential paths after just a handful of sequential reaction steps, where only a small number of paths, perhaps just one, can be taken to create the target molecule.



Mod Edit -- For Fair Use/Copyright.


The only real answer an honest atheist of today can give to how life arose from nonliving materials is, “I don’t know” whereas people of faith can point to God as the most likely cause.

Given what we actually know for sure about the likelihood that life can emerge out of nonlife it appears God as the cause is much more probable than any alternative.

Autogenesis

The alternative that is suppressed by the two cliques of self-interested fanatics is that individual beings from outside the universe created each life-form and evolved it through intelligent self-design.

I have no problem with that.

Question.

Who created them?

"You Can't Use Prime Movers Because I Already Own That"

It's the same answer that you give to "Who created God?" So the fact that you in particular ask it of others is begging the question.

There had to be a first that didn't need a cause to exist. If not a creator, then who?

Logoi

"A first...a Creator"---you push an untrue restriction that a plural number of souls cannot be self-created. Besides, creation requires a beginning. But there was no beginning; all the souls, or life-forces, have always been there. Since they are not material, they don't even require a universe to stand by in.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm................. A lot of statements without any kind of evidentiary support for any of them.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have a real problem with that claim. To me it sounds like science is trying to introduce magic. If that is the correction you have to introduce to make the equations work, you should first question the equations.

I'm not trying to make any equations work you are by using the god fudge factor.

I am saying that we do not understand 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe and that is a fact. So knowing that we only have a workable understanding of 5% of the matter and energy in the known universe why is it surprising to you that we don't know how life came to be?

In fact it is my belief that we may never fully understand the universe. I think we are limited by not only our ability or inability to detect forms of matter and energy but even to comprehend them if we could detect them. Our brains in all reality might very well be physically incapable of performing the processes necessary to do so much like my dog cannot understand algebra because of the physical limitations of her brain.

Well, one of two things are going to happen when we die. One, our consciousness survives our physical death, we meet God and understand all of the secrets of the universe and know that God did indeed create the universe.

Two, we die and cease to exist without ever "knowing" anything.

Actually there are many more possibilities than just two.

If you say so, it's ok with me. For me, either we continue to live or we die.

No for you it's we continue to live with god or we die.

You limit your thinking.

If we are correct about the laws of conservation of energy and matter then the energy that runs along our neural pathways never disappears and the matter we are composed of will remain in the system that is the universe.

It may be that the electrical energy that powers your consciousness will carry a unique fingerprint, for lack of a better term, of your being with it as it is redistributed into the universe.

Maybe. But zero evidence for that.

 

[Old Rocks]

We're the dumbest sentient species in the entire universe

LOL Speak for yourself.

 

[Taz]

We still have not an adequate explanation of gravity

Gravity attracts things. There, I just explained it to you.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The universe had a beginning. Prior to its beginning, it didn't exist. Someone or something caused the universe to come into existence. It most assuredly did not create itself. That is impossible.

Skeptics say "Who created the creator?" To which I say, something had to come first that didn't require a causation. Right?

I will add that there is other "evidence" of a creator that supports my belief in said creator. From what I've seen, atheists tend to be pretty close-minded and illogical when it comes to the subject of a creator to the point that they're positing that the universe created itself and life formed from lightning hitting some minerals. And then they accuse me of believing in a magic sky fairy. LMAO!

We need honest atheists who are not pushing some off-topic agenda like, "Humans are actually apes, you see," or, "Morality, you see, is something made up by the clergy to make us feel guilty and give them donations," or, "You see, religion is the opiate of the masses, while good opioids give you a clear insight into what is really going on."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

a fortuitous combination of CARBON atoms-----oxygen atoms and very ubiquitous hydrogen atoms----BUMPED
into each other for eons and eons------with a lot of ENERGY thrown in. ORGANIC MOLECULES came about.

the complex molecules began to wiggle. ------abiogenesis did 'happen'

Not a bad mental picture at all. A bit simplified, but it works for me. Throw in some feldspars for chirality, some water and heat, other odds and ends of various compounds and elements with catalytic properties, and, voila!, life.

Can it be replicated in a lab?

put is all together ----with periodic shots of lightening **lightning** and KNOCKING around-----for about ten
million years-----and it may happen

All You Parrots Do Is Beg the Question. And You Don't Even Know What That Means.

That says nothing about it being alive. The dead also have organic molecules.

You seem a bit eccentric.

Links Are Part of a Chain Gain



On this copycat Internet, originality is the only crime.

 

[cnm]

I will add that there is other "evidence" of a creator that supports my belief in said creator.

I guess you haven't produced it because it's the kind of 'evidence' that needs to be in quote marks.

 

[Darkwind]

Pascal's Wager.