Which of these possibilities for the origin of life on Earth is most plausible?

Question

THEORY ONE (SCIENTISTS)
1. Pre-biotic conditions result in the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. (This was demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1953).
2. Phospholipids spontaneously form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane. The polymerization of nucleotides into random RNA molecules result in self-replicating ribozymes.
3. Selection pressures for catalytic efficiency and diversity result in ribozymes which catalyse peptidyl transfer (hence formation of small proteins). First ribosome is born, and protein synthesis becomes more prevalent.
4. Proteins outcompete ribozymes in catalytic ability, and therefore become the dominant biopolymer. Nucleic acids are restricted to predominantly genomic use.
Or, "THEORY" 2 (CREATIONISTS):
1. After all eternity, God got bored one day and *poof* created man and then animals (or was it animals and then man?)!

Answer 1

Thanks for your Einstinian answer. The fact is scientist don't have a clue how the first cell came about by strictly natural means. Miller and Urey proved absolutely nothing. They got a couple amino acids and not in any order. The average protein has about 330 amino acids and they have to be and they have to be in exact order. If somehow, by random chance, you actually get those in the right order(which is mathematically impossible) you still don't have a functioning protein. It has to be folded exactly right. A long polymer like that could be folded in a zillion ways(remember, we're doing all this by random chance luck). Even if it was folded exactly right by some miracle, that's only one protein. The average cell has about 60,000 and they're different. The cell is what's alive. Proteins and amino acids are not living organisms. Let's dream a little bit. Let's say we got all 60,000 proteins, all folded exactly right, consisting of an average of 330 amino acids each, all in exactly the right order and it all came together in a lab just as Miller and Urey got there 2 or 3 amino acids.......That still wouldn't prove evolution to me. If anything, that would prove intelligent design. You have a team of scientist working in a fully equipped lab with computers. They build an apparatus using gases that they thought the atmosphere was composed of (since then they've been proven wrong). They make a trap door so that after any amino acids appeared they were taken out of the mix so that they would not be destroyed. That sounds more like intelligent design than random chance evolution.
Prof Francis Crick(who along with Dr. Watson), who was a great believer in the accidental origin of life on Earth, said, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions that had to be satisfied to get it going.” Prof. Crick goes on to argue that this might be overcome in long periods of time. However, there is no justification for believing that time can overcome basic chemical laws.
Dr H P Yockey (in the Journal of Theoretical Biology) wrote "You must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of life exists at present… Since science has not the vaguest idea how life originated on earth, … it would be honest to admit this to students, the agencies funding research and the public".
I'll take THEORY 2(creationists) but let me re-phrase it a little bit to say what it really says: Everywhere you look in the universe there's design. Where there is design, the laws of cause and effect(which Einstein called the most reliable of all physical laws) says there must be a designer. The universe has information(DNA is a language). Information always comes from intelligence. Therefore, the designer must be an intelligent designer. You can call this intelligent designer (who is the cause of the universe) anything you want. I call Him God. Only a God could design a universe.

Answer 2

Main question: I don't believe that gravity and entropy are in perfect balance, gravity is formed from mass, so the more massive an object the greater the gravity. It's a slight oversimplification but it'll suffice until you're ready for relativity but F = (G*M1*M2)/r^2 where G is a constant, M1 and M2 are the two masses, r is the distance between the two masses and F is the force of attraction between the two masses. Since heavier elements can exist on planets like Jupiter which is far more massive than earth the theory is shown to be false. Additional details: Our planet IS in the goldilocks zone there is no probability about it. The earth has one core and one large moon, there is a barycentre between the earth and moon if that's what you're talking about. The earth has four seasons because of its axial tilt nothing to do with the moon or cores. One sperm cell + one egg makes one child, given the right conditions.

Answer 3

Ultimately, we are all Africans. Studies of mitochondrial DNA have proven that all human beings are descended from a small population (less than a hundred individuals) that emerged from Africa about 60,000 years ago. The earliest written religious texts as well as the first documented monotheistic religion also developed in Africa. During the European dark ages, many ancient manuscripts were preserved in African libraries in places such as Ethiopia and Timbuctoo.

Answer 4

The first one sounds too complicated, by occam's razor (the only scientific principle that may appeal to creationists, since it is not too rational, which states that given multiple equally plausible explanations, the simplest one is the most likely), it must be the second one. This also means, obviously, that I do not understand the meaning of 'equally plausible' - but if I can believe the second theory, anything is possible, right?

Answer 5

Both are plausible, in fact i believe they coincide. One happened after another. Who is to say that god or some supernatural being did not create the "big bang" which eventually led to evolution on this earth? Unlike popular belief i think it is possible for science and religious belief to co-mingle in the same arena, they complement each other only if you choose to accept that they do, and not blindly follow what religious zealots and science geeks say alike! Science and religion are more common than people think, they both think that they are correct and the other wrong, when both are neither!

Answer 6

How about God created the earth by creating all of those proteins and molecules, thus allowing the first theory to occur?
That's what Islam says.

Answer 7

Oh, how I love it!!! Even the religious sects who used to say "Creationism only!" Have already waffled and said "Ok, maybe a little of both." You know what I think? I think my mom and dad had a fun night and 9 months later, Momma had a baby, and I was CUTE! And that's all that matters.

Answer 8

Just one thing, which experiment does the whole thing?

Anyway, I prefer Option 2 thanks.

Addition: Upsman said what I'd have like to have said.

Answer 9

Creation/Where Did I Come From?
What does the Bible teach us about creation? God is the Creator. It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:1, NIV. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

God reveals Himself through creation. It's in the Bible. Psalm 19:1, NIV. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands."

Creation points to God's existence and our responsibility. It's in the Bible, Romans 1:20, NIV. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

God spoke the world into existence. It's in the Bible, Psalm 33:6,9, NIV. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth. For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm."

God created the world in six literal days. It's in the Bible, Exodus 20:11, NIV. "For in six days the Lord made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but He rested the seventh-day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Through whom did God create all things? It's in the Bible, Colossians 1:16, NIV. "For by Him [the Son] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him." John 1:3, NIV. "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made."

What was God's object in making the earth? It's in the Bible, Isaiah 45:18, NIV. "For this is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—He says: 'I am the Lord, and there is no other."

How did God provide inhabitants for the world He had created? It's in the Bible, Genesis 2:7, 21, 22, NIV. "And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being… So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, He took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man."

In whose image was man created? It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:27, NIV. "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

To what position did God assign man? It's in the Bible, Genesis 1:26, TLB. "Then God said, 'Let us make a man—someone like ourselves, to be the master of all life upon the earth and in the skies and in the seas.' " Psalm 8:3-6, TLB "When I look up into the night skies and see the work of Your fingers—the moon and the stars You have made—I cannot understand how You can bother with mere puny man, to pay any attention to him! And yet You have made him only a little lower than the angels, and placed a crown of glory and honor upon his head. You have put him in charge of everything You made; everything is put under his authority."

Answer 10

Theory 1.

The second choice is not a theory, it's a belief.
It's also a fairy tale, a nice one.