What kind of evidence is needed before we are to actually accept that something like this really is a miracle?

Question

The problem of abiogenesis (the origin of the first lifeform) is one of the thorniest and most intractable issues in chemistry. Our increasing knowledge of microbiology and earth history has only added to the complexity of what needs to be explained. The simplest life is equivalent to modern bacteria, which is loaded with complex activity, information, and molecular "machines." The fossil record does not give evidence that there was a "prebiotic soup," or that there were any biological precursors to the first organisms, or that the atmosphere was the ideal mix to yield the necessary molecules, or that there was the expected long period of time between when the Earth could support life and when it actually appeared. Evolutionists regularly segregate the abiogenesis problem from the issue of evolution because
(1) it is a challenge they'd rather not be saddled with,

or

(2) it is the most logical point for possible divine intervention.

However, for the atheist there is no escaping this issue; they are obliged to seek out some purely natural explanation.
What hope for an explanation do you have? Are you satisfied to have problems like this that are unanswered, or even unanswerable?

Answer 1

Perhaps there are such fossils. If there are it would be impossible to identify them. (See Phoenix' explanation)

You forgot to include answers (3) and above which are explanations not thought of yet or not given much credence. Why assume that it has to be either evolution or creationism?

Yes, I am VERY happy to have unanswered and unanswerable questions. If we think we've explained the universe then we've definitely got something wrong. I am unwilling to put my faith in anything - scientific or religious - which claims to explain it.

Answer 2

The simplest "life" today are viruses, not bacteria. And there is no reason to suppose that extinct "life" couldn't be even simpler. The fossil record can't give us any evidence about the "prebiotic soup", as such "organisms" do not fossilise! And the geological record gives us much evidence about the early atmosphere and surface. And!! abiogenesis is separate from Evolution by Natural Selection as, by definition, the process of Evolution by Natural Selection needs life to act on!! In short, what a complete pack of lies you have just posted.

But to answer your question, science is full of unanswered problems. It is a childish trait to seek black and white certain "answers" for everything. As an adult, and a scientist, I am completely comfortable with "I don't know" when there is not enough evidence (yet, it is still gathering).

Answer 3

The simplest life today has evolved for the last 3.5 billion years.


It is generally accepted by scientist that there were a lot of the building blocks for life floating around on the Earth from about 4 billion years ago.

That some of these would randomly join together to form a molecule that could produce a copy of itself seems unlikely, until you consider that it had millions of cubic miles of water to do it in and 500,000,000 years. That is over 2,000 times longer than humans have been on the planet.

As soon as you have a RNA like molecule that is capable of producing an almost perfect copy of itself then evolution will ensure that it becomes more complex and better at surviving.


I have no problem with the start of life on this planet.

What will you do when in the next 20 years(my prediction) scientists manage to simulate the early Earth and manage to make self replicating molecules in the lab?

You may want to look back at the early 19th century. It used to be believed that the chemicals of living organisms were fundamentally different from inanimate matter and that organic chemicals had a 'vital force' and could only come from an organic source.

Then in 1828 Friedrich Woehler made urea (an organic compound) from inorganic chemicals, proving that there was no 'vital force' that made organic chemicals different from inorganic.

There is no 'vital force' required for aboigenesis.

Answer 4

Abiogenesis is only one scientific theory of how life began on earth, there are others. The exactly details of how life began on earth may remain a mystery but even the most far out, unthinkable theory around still makes more sense, is more rational, is more feasible that the parable that is the creation story.
But to get to your questions, of course there are no fossil records for bacteria. Fossilization requires hard tissue and such life forms as bacteria do not possess such. There are some indications of what the water and air was composed of from some of the oldest dated rocks that have been discovered. That does give scientist the ability to approximate the conditions of the time based on known properties of the elements found.
Like I stated before, will we ever know the exact details? Probably not. Will we ever be able to pinpoint the exact spark started it all? Perhaps not.
I do know one thing without a single doubt in my mind. Man created god in his image, not the other way around.

Answer 5

I'm fine with not having all the answers in life. We never, ever, ever will.

However, there are a few points to be made here:
1. It is not that the earth's atmosphere was the "ideal mix" for life, but that the life that evolved was the ideal mix for this atmosphere. There could be numerous other possible "mixes" that could yield life that we simply have yet to discover.

2. The fossil record shows fossilized organisms. Of course it would not show the lack of organisms before organisms existed. It is not so easy for remains to become fossilized, so it is not likely that remains of early simple life forms would be preserved.

3. The simplest life is NOT equivalent to modern bacteria.

Answer 6

This atheist is satisfied that as long as serious research continues, some progress will be made and, as long as progress is made, the problem will eventually be solved. I first studied abiogenesis in a high school biology class in 1962 and I've witnessed slow but steady progress for forty-five years. We know far more about the subject now than we did back then. I will probably not live to see the solution, but I have no doubt science will eventually find the answer. It always does.

Answer 7

Nothing is unanswerable. Science, unlike religion is a fluid every changing thing.

What we do not know today, we may learn tomorrow. I am not a scientist, just a normal person, but I know that there is no invisible flying creature floating about the sky. Sorry but that concept has no validation whatsoever. It is just silly.

Carbon dating has proven beyond any doubt the age of the earth. If you choose to seriously believe that a: god put the evidence there to test you, or b: carbon dating is completely inaccurate, that is your prerogative. You are however, wrong.

Answer 8

This is what I think. There is an answer to everything, but not everything is answered. Scientists wont admit that they are wrong or that they may be wrong. They are human. I don't believe in evolution for 3 reasons:

1: They don't explain where we came from.
2: They do not show to be mature in the most part (just look at some Dawkins video on youtube)
3: Creationist makes more sense.

I don't believe that we came from nowhere. Nowhere doe snot exist. In order for a baseball to be home run, someone should have hit the ball with a bat. A bat was needed and someone to handle the bat. The ball by it self does not hit a home run (that is what evolutionists say) Is that possible for a meteor to hit earth coming from nowhere?

Evolutionists are sooo wrong. And they know it. If they are so sure about evolution what don't they let creationism to be taught at school?

Answer 9

you're splendid in putting abiogenesis adjoining to evolution, because of the fact if a transcendent, resourceful agent replaced into in touch with the single then he/she is in all probability proper for the different, too. technological know-how bargains with them one after the different because of the fact diverse suggestions and rules could be in touch. on the different hand the two are each from time to time separated for the sake of the divide and triumph over physique of innovations to keep away from the region you describe in (a million)/(2). lots of the tactics defined by evolutionists seem proper while there is truly only one massive 'i don't be responsive to' in abiogenesis and that's an invite to (some) creationists' to scream 'evidence of God and Bible'. wish for a proof? i think of it could come from a realm it relatively is obtainable to instinct quite than technological know-how. although, the outcomes shouldn't conflict with technological know-how yet quite supplement it. i think of, that if the dating between technological know-how and faith could be much less conflicted then some exciting, present day-day clarification could desire to appear. happy? No. I found out to stay with it yet keep looking.