What caused life to come into existence?

[Old Rocks]

Your assumption is that there is a Deity, and it operates as you believe it operates. Two very large unsupported assumptions there.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your assumption is that there is a Deity, and it operates as you believe it operates. Two very large unsupported assumptions there.

I think I was pretty clear that I assume nothing and that I don[t know how the Deity operates.

 

[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.

 

[deanrd]

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.

It's harder to figure stuff out than to just say it magically happened. If we knew everything, there really wouldn't be any need for colleges.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

It's harder to figure stuff out than to just say it magically happened. If we knew everything, there really wouldn't be any need for colleges.

Saying the universe created itself and then saying that a combination of special rocks being struck by lightning created an amino acid which evolved into what we are today is saying something magical happened. LOL.

 

[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.

It's harder to figure stuff out than to just say it magically happened. If we knew everything, there really wouldn't be any need for colleges.

Saying the universe created itself and then saying that a combination of special rocks being struck by lightning created an amino acid which evolved into what we are today is saying something magical happened. LOL.

Glad that is settled. Since you believe in magic, we no longer have a problem. Right?

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

 

[K9Buck]

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?

It made itself.

 

[Asclepias]

I hate to say this but you white people are confused. God and science are the same thing. Its always been that way and so it shall remain.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

It made itself.

That would be a concept Einstein held as a possibility. He didn't believe in a personal God but he, like Spinoza, used logic and reason to figure out that random chance was so improbable in what they observed of the universe, that they saw some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process.

 

[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.

 

[K9Buck]

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 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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[K9Buck]

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!

 

[K9Buck]

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 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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[K9Buck]

...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.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

 

[Taz]

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.