Life from dead chemicals?

Question

Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

Answer 1

that mathematical argument has no merit.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940_1.html

over a billion years, a lot can happen

Answer 2

Well that sure as heck ain't true. Biogenesis ain't a law any more than abiogenesis is, it's just a process - biogenesis is life producing life while abiogenesis is life arrising from simple amino-acid chains.

What you're doing is basically lying as spontaneous amino-acid formation has been demonstrated, it's only a few steps beyond that before a self-replicating polymer could form.

As for the so called "chances" of it happening, the figures these people come up with - "Oh there's 0.0000000005% chance of life arrising from nothing" - they _make_them_up_, there is no possible way to come up with a mathematical probability of life arrising from Earth's chemical-rich paast environment due to the fact that we don't know what it was like.

Answer 3

Pastor proved that once existence changed into neutralised and killed, no new existence could upward push up from it. reason is there is oftentimes no source of skill, little raw products permitting for it to be created, not sufficient time for effortless self-replication to reoccur. You cant have ressurection of a useless cellular, until eventually you employ very precise options and it truly is a unicellular existence form. some experiments were able to revive a useless cellular, notwithstanding it may oftentimes fail to be resurected. It relied on how large the misplaced cloth changed into and if key structures were misplaced. There are motives already of ways the approach could nicely be finished, notwithstanding maximum cellular do not have the selfrepairing mechanism required to fix a useless cellular (useless skill no more desirable skill left interior the cellular and the ionic stability is reached outdoors and contained in the cellular.)

Answer 4

Proteins that replicated at the molecular level are believed to be how life began although that in itself does not count as 'life'. It all depends on where you draw the line between life and chemicals. The jury is still out over whether viruses are alive.

Answer 5

first of all you cant have a dead chemical since chemicals can never be alive in the first place. secondly, yes at any given point the chance of life happening out of the primordial soup is essentially zero but when you have what may as well be considered an eternity plus infinite number of spaces to do that your odds are increased significantly.

Answer 6

When a theist asks atheists about some fine detail of science in the Religion section, we now take it as read that you have no interest in an answer at all. Go and ask this in the biology section if you actually ARE interested. You'll find plenty of atheists there too.

Answer 7

to answer a question concerning both originality and uniqueness as it correlates errors in certain aspects of religousy founded science types of aspiration and whether or not they are existing of the right humility..

to look more closely at this one must start not w/ being a muslim or a christian or a scientist or a universal linguist..

this solution lies in our expectation of the actuality of the process of the big bang and the explanation for the birth and death of a reality itself and the foundation for the really really finite and inscrutinable details concerning randomness as if randomness could be construed as the highest power in some possible aspect of itself as a super-imposed infinitizational lovefulness of the acceptability of the selflessness of a freedom

Answer 8

Life is an arbitrary label which is poorly defined. Everything is just interacting particles. What you call "life" is just a set of related chemical reactions among "dead chemicals". The distinction between life and non-life is meaningless.

Answer 9

This is a misuse of statistics. Events of low probability happen all the time. So if you talk to some statisticians they will tell you that an event either has a probability of 1 or 0.

Answer 10

No, "evolutionists" focus on evolution. Abiogenesis is SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Visit the biology section, or the chemistry section... well, visit those sections only if you REALLY care about getting honest, factual answers to these questions of yours.

Otherwise, keep cranking 'em out and then fooling yourself into thinking that it proves something about your god.

Answer 11

1. Life (a bug, for example), did not just pop out of a rock. No one claims such. There is much room between "non-life" (such as naturally forming amino acids) and other things like proteins, self-replicating molecules, open cells, etc.

2. Your math is faulty and your understanding of statistics horrendous.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Read a bit, will ya?