What caused life to come into existence?

[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.

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.

You do realize those inventions are still subject to our own limitations aren't you?

We have absolutely no understanding of 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe. That we celebrate our understanding of the universe to the degree we do is pretty arrogant

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Which is why I used the word "If" to preface my statement.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

As a committed ABG cultist, you wouldn't accept it anyway.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Three cheers for the god of gaps filling holes in knowledge.

You like that term, but I don't think you're talking about the "Gap Theory" which is my belief as far as the 6,000 year misunderstanding.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Fear of the unknown would be my guess.

Yes. It's a problem for the Left.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

“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.”

Your thread premise fails as an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

That there is no objective, documented evidence as to the origins of life does not mean ‘god’ is the answer.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.
.

Yeah, that's right. It's a lot easier to believe that some super being who came from 'god'-knows where just went 'abracadabra' than a scientific reason. Which train of thought has the more credible outcomes?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.

What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.

No more crazy than thinking a spirit that created itself created everything.
Or thinking we are nothing more than an alien experiment 10K light years away from home.

The topic is how life came into existence on Earth. Science offers nothing. In a thousand years they'll still have nothing. There's only one force that can create life.

Crap. You sit there posting this on the internet through a computer, and then say science offers nothing. LOL All you damned fundementalists have offered over the centuries is ignorance and death. The hell with you assholes.

Listen, sweetie, I say science has not presented credible evidence, let alone a theory, that explains how life on Earth began. You're welcome to demonstrate otherwise.

Who cares what you say? That's the beauty of empiricism...it stands regardless of your superstitions, neuroses, and fetishes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

You do realize those inventions are still subject to our own limitations aren't you?

We have absolutely no understanding of 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe. That we celebrate our understanding of the universe to the degree we do is pretty arrogant

What a dumb statement. We absolutely should celebrate our gained knowledge, and especially our methods for gaining it. By the way, I just told you that on a quantum mechanical machine which sent the message over fiber optic cables which employ eloctromagnetic theory and satellites reliant on the theory of general relativity. I guess I should have been less arrogant and used a carrier pigeon.

 

[rightwinger]

How life came into existence

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Philosophy answers this question with surmising that a God created Itself.

There are no Religion or Science answers.

 

[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.

You do realize those inventions are still subject to our own limitations aren't you?

We have absolutely no understanding of 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe. That we celebrate our understanding of the universe to the degree we do is pretty arrogant

Really? Are you telling me that the overhead cranes in our steel mill cannot lift more than a strong man? Are you telling me that you can find the third root of a four digit number in a fraction of a second? Really, you have a knack for saying the dumbest things.

 

[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.

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.

You do realize those inventions are still subject to our own limitations aren't you?

We have absolutely no understanding of 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe. That we celebrate our understanding of the universe to the degree we do is pretty arrogant

What a dumb statement. We absolutely should celebrate our gained knowledge, and especially our methods for gaining it. By the way, I just told you that on a quantum mechanical machine which sent the message over fiber optic cables which employ eloctromagnetic theory and satellites reliant on the theory of general relativity. I guess I should have been less arrogant and used a carrier pigeon.

PUHLEASE

We don't know shit about 95% of the universe.

You can't deny that. But hey it might be a big thing to you to understand 5% of what you see

 

[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.

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.

You do realize those inventions are still subject to our own limitations aren't you?

We have absolutely no understanding of 95% of the matter and energy in the known universe. That we celebrate our understanding of the universe to the degree we do is pretty arrogant

Really? Are you telling me that the overhead cranes in our steel mill cannot lift more than a strong man? Are you telling me that you can find the third root of a four digit number in a fraction of a second? Really, you have a knack for saying the dumbest things.

All those things fall within the 5% of the known universe we have a workable understanding of. We do not have any clue about the other 95% do we?

No we don't.

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept that we may never be able to understand every aspect of the universe or that we have real physical limitations to the processing power of our brains?

We may very well never understand that 95% of the universe that is a complete mystery to us just like my dog will never understand calculus.

Thinking that we have unlimited intelligence with no physiological limits is arrogance

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

And how did they come into existence? Did they create themselves?

how did the ATOMS come into existence----or how did the molecules come into existence?

All Is Lava

In an eruption from another dimension, from prime material that has existed always. in fact, time itself never had a beginning.

I don't share your belief. I believe our universe had a beginning that coincided with the beginning of time.

And that is all it is, a belief. A belief that you decided because it was convenient for you, nothing more. It's like saying today is Tuesday because I like Tuesdays.

Big bang.

Quantum Quacks

That is an impossible concentration of matter. Its childish name shows how goofy nerds are.