Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Im not being narrow minded. I am the one not trying to pretend to know something. You are.so was my post.No more crazy than thinking a spirit that created itself created everything.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.
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.
We dont know what they will have. We dont know of any forces that create life. We have theories and assumptions.
Our creator created life. I know you reject such a belief. Open your eyes and your mind and stop being so narrow-minded.
And there were the experiments that yielded proto-cells. In fact, we are finding that we get some very interesting complex organic compounds around the rift zones in the oceans. And our most primitive life that we have found thus far are extremophiles that like a very hot wet anoxic conditions. In fact, as noted before, it is not a lack of known conditions that create complex organics in different environments, but the multitude of possible paths that that first life may have taken that is the problem.A crushingly stupid OP. No, we do not know exactly what path abiogenesis took, among the very many that look possible at present. However, the answer to the question posed in the title are the laws of physics and chemistry.
That's right. You don't know shit from shinola but you continue to push the fairy tale that life somehow developed from non-living matter. Impossible.
The Miller-Urey experiment in the '50s showed without doubt that self-replicating organic compounds can assemble from their constituent inorganic elements given the right environment.
Whether or not that is the source of life on Earth is still conjecture. But, it's not impossible.
How about actually stating what the scientists say is the most likely environment for abiogenesis to have taken place. And it is not in a rock, you sill ass.Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.Fear of the unknown would be my guess.I dont pretend to know. Most humans starve for answers to chaos. IDK why they cant be patient instead of throwing away logic and reality.
What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.
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.
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.No more crazy than thinking a spirit that created itself created everything.Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.Fear of the unknown would be my guess.I dont pretend to know. Most humans starve for answers to chaos. IDK why they cant be patient instead of throwing away logic and reality.
What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.
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.
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.
So the difference here is that people who don't believe say "I don't know" when they don't know, and religious people say "I know, I know" when they don't know. That's the difference.
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.No more crazy than thinking a spirit that created itself created everything.Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.Fear of the unknown would be my guess.
What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.
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.
Not one that needs adoration.So the story of the film so far, God creates but doesn't need a creator for himself...are you sure he has a penis?
Something or someone has to break the chain by being the first WITHOUT a cause. Do you agree or disagree?
How about actually stating what the scientists say is the most likely environment for abiogenesis to have taken place. And it is not in a rock, you sill ass.Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.Fear of the unknown would be my guess.I dont pretend to know. Most humans starve for answers to chaos. IDK why they cant be patient instead of throwing away logic and reality.
What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.
Not one that needs adoration.So the story of the film so far, God creates but doesn't need a creator for himself...are you sure he has a penis?
Something or someone has to break the chain by being the first WITHOUT a cause. Do you agree or disagree?
None are mathematically possible for starters, your arrogance makes you a foolA crushingly stupid OP. No, we do not know exactly what path abiogenesis took, among the very many that look possible at present. However, the answer to the question posed in the title are the laws of physics and chemistry.
If you need knee pads they are cheaper on Amazon..Not one that needs adoration.So the story of the film so far, God creates but doesn't need a creator for himself...are you sure he has a penis?
Something or someone has to break the chain by being the first WITHOUT a cause. Do you agree or disagree?
Apparently, that question made you uncomfortable. Stick to ABG, it's ok with me.
OK, how many college level classes have you taken in biology, geology, physics, and chemistry? How about mathematics? Because if the answer is none, then you have zero basis to make that judgement on. These courses are available at any Community College.How about actually stating what the scientists say is the most likely environment for abiogenesis to have taken place. And it is not in a rock, you sill ass.Decent guess. Makes sense. Humans must always fill in holes with something. Regardless of how unfounded or delusional it is.Fear of the unknown would be my guess.I dont pretend to know. Most humans starve for answers to chaos. IDK why they cant be patient instead of throwing away logic and reality.
What's "delusional" is the belief that the universe created itself and that life came from a rock.
There's no credible that life could form from a lifeless environment via abiogenesis. At least, not that I've seen.
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.
So the difference here is that people who don't believe say "I don't know" when they don't know, and religious people say "I know, I know" when they don't know. That's the difference.
Atheists sometimes say they don't know immediately after claiming to know that your theory is ludicrous.
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.
So the difference here is that people who don't believe say "I don't know" when they don't know, and religious people say "I know, I know" when they don't know. That's the difference.
Atheists sometimes say they don't know immediately after claiming to know that your theory is ludicrous.
Good for atheists. I'm not an atheist. I'm a person who waits until I know.
If you want to discuss with atheists, go ahead.
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.
So the difference here is that people who don't believe say "I don't know" when they don't know, and religious people say "I know, I know" when they don't know. That's the difference.
Atheists sometimes say they don't know immediately after claiming to know that your theory is ludicrous.
Good for atheists. I'm not an atheist. I'm a person who waits until I know.
If you want to discuss with atheists, go ahead.
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.
So the difference here is that people who don't believe say "I don't know" when they don't know, and religious people say "I know, I know" when they don't know. That's the difference.
Atheists sometimes say they don't know immediately after claiming to know that your theory is ludicrous.
Good for atheists. I'm not an atheist. I'm a person who waits until I know.
If you want to discuss with atheists, go ahead.
Is my theory ludicrous?
There are many theories out there, chances they're right? Who knows? The simple fact is religious people don't know, they believe.
