This is for all the atheists here.

[RWNJ]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

 

[sealybobo]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

What college? If it’s a religious school fuck off

 

[sealybobo]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

Has this been peer reviewed? Has this gone through the scientific process? What does this prove?

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

No, he does not. He starts out with an assumption, then tries to fit the information to that assumption. I would never take a class from someone like that. They are not scientists. And here is a far better site;
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

 

[WinterBorn]

I find it hilarious that this sort of posts repeatedly comes from the same guy who whined that atheists are always trying to convince people God does not exist.

 

[alang1216]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

 

[edthecynic]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

Here is a typical Creationist LIE from the link by your lying author:
"What do I mean by “wrong starting materials”? Miller left out oxygen. Why? Because of the scientific evidence? No. He left it out because he knew oxygen would destroy the very molecules he was trying to produce."

Actually Miller left out oxygen precisely because of scientific evidence!!! There was no free oxygen for the first half of Earth's existence!!!!!
Creationists, like all professional liars, lie to your level of ignorance.

Article: Earth Without Oxygen

Oxygen makes up about one-fifth the volume of Earth's atmosphere today and is a central element of life as we know it. But that wasn't always the case. Oxygen, although always present in compounds in Earth's interior, atmosphere, and oceans, did not begin to accumulate in the atmosphere as oxygen gas (O2) until well into the planet's history.

Snip/

If Earth had water, it must have had an atmosphere, and if it had an atmosphere, it must have had a climate. What was Earth's early atmosphere made of? Nitrogen (N2), certainly. Nitrogen makes up the bulk of today's atmosphere and likely has been around since the beginning. Water vapor (H2O), probably from volcanic emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2), also emitted by volcanic eruptions, which were plentiful at that time. And methane (CH4), generated inside the Earth and possibly also by methane-producing microbes that thrived on and in the seafloor, as they do today.

Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane played an important role in Earth's subsequent development. Four billion years ago, the Sun was 30 percent dimmer, and therefore colder, than it is today. Under such conditions, Earth's water should have been frozen, yet clearly it wasn't. The water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane acted as greenhouse gases, trapping heat and insulating the early Earth during a critical period in its development.

Of oxygen, meanwhile, the early atmosphere held barely a trace. What did exist likely formed when solar radiation split airborne molecules of water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Hydrogen, a lightweight gas, would have risen above the atmosphere and slowly been lost to space. The heavier oxygen gas, left behind, would have quickly reacted with atmospheric gases such as methane or with minerals on Earth's surface and been drawn out of the atmosphere and back into the crust and mantle. Oxygen could only begin to accumulate in the atmosphere if it was being produced faster than it was being removed'—in other words, if something else was also producing it.

That something was life. Although the fossil evidence is sketchy, methane-producing microbes may have inhabited Earth as long ago as 3.8 billion years. By 2.7 billion years ago, a new kind of life had established itself: photosynthetic microbes called cyanobacteria, which were capable of using the Sun's energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into food with oxygen gas as a waste product. They lived in shallow seas, protected from full exposure to the Sun's harmful radiation. (To learn more about these organisms and the fossil evidence for them, watch the accompanying video "Early Fossil Life.")

 

[RWNJ]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

 

[alang1216]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

 

[WinterBorn]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

A virus does not contain DNA. RNA can do the same job in simpler life forms. There is even research showing that PNAs can do it as well.

 

[RWNJ]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

 

[alang1216]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Global scientitfic community: "Evolution is a fact."

RWNJ: "Scientists are all incompetent liars!"

(Scientist blogs an agreeable opinion)

RWNJ: "He teaches biology, so he knows what he is talking about!"
...............

How can this guy act this way with a straight face? Same goes for all the other deniers.

 

[RWNJ]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

It is a scientific fact that life comes only from life. Life is based on DNA. Do I need to draw you a picture?

 

[WinterBorn]

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

It is a scientific fact that life comes only from life. Life is based on DNA. Do I need to draw you a picture?

If you ignore viruses, all life we currently know about is based on DNA replication.

But viruses are evidence that RNA can do the same things DNA does, in simpler organisms.

 

[alang1216]

He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

It is a scientific fact that life comes only from life. Life is based on DNA. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Except we know for a fact that is not true. You may think God created the first life while I think it came from natural processes, but we both agree that life came from non-life. We just disagree on the mechanism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

It is a scientific fact that life comes only from life. Life is based on DNA. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Except we know for a fact that is not true. You may think God created the first life while I think it came from natural processes, but we both agree that life came from non-life. We just disagree on the mechanism.

Which, in any other scientific topic, would not cause conflict. When we learned the planets revolve about the Sun, the Christians were able to just say, "Yep, just as God designed it!" and move on to the next episode.

Evolution doesn't clash with creation, in any pure sense. It merely clashes with the Creation Myth of Christianity. Thus intellectually absurd threads like this one....thus ridiculous behavior, like calling the global scientific community incompetent liars, then using a person's scientific authority as support for an agreeable opinion...

 

[jillian]

This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein

answers in genesis?

the Bible isn't science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

answers in genesis?

Yep! Con man and child abuser Ken Hamm's nauseating propaganda website.

 

[RWNJ]

All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.

I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.

Read the article, then we can discuss it. No point, otherwise. You can't discuss something you haven't even read. I would think you were intelligent enough to realize this, but I guess I was wrong.

OK. He writes: 'Will time, chance, and chemical reactions between DNA and protein automatically produce life?' It is absurd to require that both DNA and proteins be available BEFORE life can begin since DNA is created BY life. Does he explore a scenario that doesn't require DNA pre-existing? I didn't see it.

It is a scientific fact that life comes only from life. Life is based on DNA. Do I need to draw you a picture?

Except we know for a fact that is not true. You may think God created the first life while I think it came from natural processes, but we both agree that life came from non-life. We just disagree on the mechanism.

And yet no one can explain how or why these natural processes resulted in life. You accept it on faith. Plus, the article explained the problems with the acids and bases in DNA assembling by naturalistic processes. According all the scientific knowledge we possess, this is a physical impossibility. Even atheist scientists admit this is a huge problem.