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

answers in genesis?

the Bible isn't science.

But a biologist wrote the article. Perhaps you should read it. I know you didn't. What are you afraid of?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet no one can explain how or why these natural processes resulted in life. You accept it on faith.

Completely false. It is an evidence-based determination, and it's one resulting from ALL of the empirical evidence available pointing to a deterministic universe that follows natural laws.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By the way: Dr. Gary Parker is not and has never been a biologist.

 

[alang1216]

Even atheist scientists admit this is a huge problem.

Unknowns are not huge problems, they are just unknowns.

 

[RWNJ]

Even atheist scientists admit this is a huge problem.

Unknowns are not huge problems, they are just unknowns.

Science is based on observation and experimentation. Observation tells us that life comes only from life. That is a scientific fact. There has never been one example that refutes this. The belief that life can arise from lifeless chemicals is just that. A belief. No evidence to support it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is based on observation and experimentation. Observation tells us that life comes only from life.

100% incorrect. Observing an event to only occur one way does not rule out any other possibilities, because the number and scope of our observations may be limited.

This is an amateurish fallacy that represents one of the reasons we invented and use empirical methods to gain knowledge.

 

[alang1216]

Even atheist scientists admit this is a huge problem.

Unknowns are not huge problems, they are just unknowns.

Science is based on observation and experimentation. Observation tells us that life comes only from life. That is a scientific fact. There has never been one example that refutes this. The belief that life can arise from lifeless chemicals is just that. A belief. No evidence to support it.

This world was created without life. Now there is life. That is a fact accepted by everyone and is all the evidence anyone needs to say that life can arise from lifeless chemicals.

Here is one explanation though I don't take it literally: Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[RWNJ]

Even atheist scientists admit this is a huge problem.

Unknowns are not huge problems, they are just unknowns.

Science is based on observation and experimentation. Observation tells us that life comes only from life. That is a scientific fact. There has never been one example that refutes this. The belief that life can arise from lifeless chemicals is just that. A belief. No evidence to support it.

This world was created without life. Now there is life. That is a fact accepted by everyone and is all the evidence anyone needs to say that life can arise from lifeless chemicals.

Here is one explanation though I don't take it literally: Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

 

[Old Rocks]

Abiogenesis experiments[edit]
In 2001 Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space using a "Chill vacuum chamber"--a lot of biomolecules: nitriles, ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, and others.[12] [13]

In a complementary experiment, Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."[14]

In 2010 Craig Venter and his colleagues inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and produced the first artificial life form (a.k.a. "dial-a-genome").[15] While it may seem like artificial abiogenesis, it nevertheless involved some major cheating: the artificial chromosome was constructed using gene sequences of an existing organism.

As of 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells".[16]

In 2014 a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.[17]

A 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light. [18]

In 2015 the lander Philae discovered 16 organic compounds, four of which had never been detected on a comet before, on the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Many of the organic compounds are important building-blocks of life.[19] [20][21]

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.[22][23]

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.[24][25]

Here's a video about it[edit]

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki

Should you really care to research it, there is a great deal of evidence as to the mechanisms for abiogenesis. From protocell research, to the research involving both the cold of space to the heat of the rift zones. As we explore the universe, one of the more interesting items will be finding the different ways that abiogenesis has worked elsewhere.

 

[alang1216]

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

re: "This world was created without life. Now there is life."
No, I checked with everyone. If you don't believe me try and find someone who disagrees with the above quote.

As to when, though we don't how or know the exact date we do know how long ago life existed on earth, 3.95 billion years ago.

 

[Old Rocks]

Which is indicates that the natural laws of this universe favor the formation of life. That was a very short time after the Hadean period.

 

[RWNJ]

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

re: "This world was created without life. Now there is life."
No, I checked with everyone. If you don't believe me try and find someone who disagrees with the above quote.

As to when, though we don't how or know the exact date we do know how long ago life existed on earth, 3.95 billion years ago.

Abiogenesis experiments[edit]
In 2001 Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space using a "Chill vacuum chamber"--a lot of biomolecules: nitriles, ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, and others.[12] [13]

In a complementary experiment, Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."[14]

In 2010 Craig Venter and his colleagues inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and produced the first artificial life form (a.k.a. "dial-a-genome").[15] While it may seem like artificial abiogenesis, it nevertheless involved some major cheating: the artificial chromosome was constructed using gene sequences of an existing organism.

As of 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells".[16]

In 2014 a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.[17]

A 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light. [18]

In 2015 the lander Philae discovered 16 organic compounds, four of which had never been detected on a comet before, on the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Many of the organic compounds are important building-blocks of life.[19] [20][21]

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.[22][23]

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.[24][25]

Here's a video about it[edit]

Abiogenesis - RationalWiki

Should you really care to research it, there is a great deal of evidence as to the mechanisms for abiogenesis. From protocell research, to the research involving both the cold of space to the heat of the rift zones. As we explore the universe, one of the more interesting items will be finding the different ways that abiogenesis has worked elsewhere.

It's a long way from amino acids to life. The fact that amino acids can form is irrelevant. There is no evidence that they could ever spontaneously arrange themselves into a living organism. It is physically impossible. You'd know this if you had actually read the article.

 

[RWNJ]

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

re: "This world was created without life. Now there is life."
No, I checked with everyone. If you don't believe me try and find someone who disagrees with the above quote.

As to when, though we don't how or know the exact date we do know how long ago life existed on earth, 3.95 billion years ago.

The world was created with life. It was a six day act of creation. Granted, the Earth was created before life, but not by much. Certainly not billions of years. That's a fantasy.

 

[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.")

I notice NutJob is avoiding Parker's lie that I exposed above.
I wonder why?
No I don't, he knows it is a lie but can't admit his source is a liar.

 

[alang1216]

It's a long way from amino acids to life. The fact that amino acids can form is irrelevant. There is no evidence that they could ever spontaneously arrange themselves into a living organism. It is physically impossible. You'd know this if you had actually read the article.

Just one of the many straw men in the article. Why suppose that life is dependent on amino acids? That way life will seem impossible but he was not honest. The reality was that amino acids in RNA/DNA are made by the living just as they are today and life was much, much simpler. All the first life had to do was grow and divide. Once that happened, evolution shaped every living thing we see today.

If you want another example of his dishonesty here is another example:

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. It’s hard for us to realize how “corrosive” oxygen is, since most modern living things depend on it. But oxygen is so valuable to life precisely because it’s so chemically reactive, and aerobic living things today have systems to protect themselves against the harmful effects of oxygen, while using its chemical power​

If he was honest he'd admit that science believes oxygen was not present in the early atmosphere because it it so reactive. It wasn't until photosynthesis that free oxygen appeared. Another straw man.

 

[alang1216]

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

re: "This world was created without life. Now there is life."
No, I checked with everyone. If you don't believe me try and find someone who disagrees with the above quote.

As to when, though we don't how or know the exact date we do know how long ago life existed on earth, 3.95 billion years ago.

The world was created with life. It was a six day act of creation. Granted, the Earth was created before life, but not by much. Certainly not billions of years. That's a fantasy.

So you admit I'm right and claim I'm wrong at the same time? Nice dance.

I didn't realize you are a young earth creationist. Is that accurate? If that is the case there is a lot of evidence of an old earth/universe. You may say that was the way God created it but why would he do such a thing?

 

[WinterBorn]

To claim that EVERYONE believes something is pretty ludicrous. Don't you think? And there is no scientific evidence about when or how life began. It's all guesswork. Scientists simply don't know. The belief that life started by itself is just that. A belief. One that is not based on any kind of scientific observation or experimentation. That's a fact.

re: "This world was created without life. Now there is life."
No, I checked with everyone. If you don't believe me try and find someone who disagrees with the above quote.

As to when, though we don't how or know the exact date we do know how long ago life existed on earth, 3.95 billion years ago.

The world was created with life. It was a six day act of creation. Granted, the Earth was created before life, but not by much. Certainly not billions of years. That's a fantasy.

Now see, this is the biggest area where you go off the rails.

If you want to point out areas in which the science is in question or where there are weak spots, that is great.

But the fact that you want to replace actual science with this "...six day act of creation" you have lost all credibility. Whatever weak spots there are in scientific explanations pales in comparison to the preposterous notions that we should use a singe religious book as our source.

 

[Mr Natural]

The world was created with life. It was a six day act of creation. Granted, the Earth was created before life, but not by much. Certainly not billions of years. That's a fantasy.

No, this nonsense you posted is a fantasy.

 

[RWNJ]

The world was created with life. It was a six day act of creation. Granted, the Earth was created before life, but not by much. Certainly not billions of years. That's a fantasy.

No, this nonsense you posted is a fantasy.

That's OK. You can mock me and laugh all you like. It doesn't change a thing. The universe exists for a reason. It was created. It could not have created itself. Nothing can create itself. That's a scientific fact. So go right on laighing.

 

[Old Rocks]

And your degree in theoretical physics is from what university?