What do creationists think about the chemical reaction of magnetite with Carbon and oxygen?

Question

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthScience/Building_blocks_of_life_found_on_Mars/articleshow/2616844.cms

Is this the primordial ooze that life sprang from?
The spontaneous creation of life from nothing?

Or could this be the way God creates life. not by saying be human and Bam! a human stands there but by providing the "building blocks" that life may spring from.

Answer man No but it takes building blocks to build a skyscraper

Thomas of course it isn't from an experiment by man. Look above to the heavenly bodies indeed!!!
We are all Star Matter. Everything on this earth including us was once a star!!

Outside of a lab where do you find sterilized water?

The example i cited is a naturally occurring one not a lab produced one.

Answer 1

Stop it! You're using too many big, science-y words. ::puts fingers in ears:: "La la la la la la" No -- God did it. It's just easier that way... the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it.

What? That's a good fundie answer. ;)

Answer 2

Building blocks do not equal a skyscraper.

Answer 3

It's quite remarkable and makes me extremely happy.

Answer 4

**I AM NOT A Creationist, but whatever building blocks used involving the very creations of life, would still have to be under control of a maker, as any invention or complex substance that exists on the earth, has , as this truth states:

(Hebrews 3:4) “. . .Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God. . .”

Thus primordial energy, ooze, elements, componds , or what have you are just building blocks for higher forms of life , as stated here as to the created celestial bodies:

(Isaiah 40:26) “. . .Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.”

Einsteins E=mc2 agrees with the above recorded over 2500 years ago! In order for matter to exist it has to have been converted from energy, who is in full control and maintainer of energy & bodies that exist?

Concerning the very basic components in a living body of dna & rna, please note what was propounded & stated as to indicating whether finding it on another world or not is the issue:

*** ct p. 48 From “the RNA World” or Another World? ***
**Appendix B
---In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?
>>In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”
>>Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”
>>There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”
>>Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. THE REAL ISSUE REMAINS. (my caps)

Or in you inquiry from another planet!

The Bibles simple presentation of God using complex principles & laws with time involved(not the eons of evolutionary time NOR the quick creation of the creationists)
and the ability to study the creation to learn from God's handiwork is what should be appreaciated, as recorded by Moses here:

(Job 12:7-9) “. . .However, ask, please, the domestic animals, and they will instruct you; Also the winged creatures of the heavens, and they will tell you.  8 Or show your concern to the earth, and it will instruct you; And the fishes of the sea will declare it to you.  9 Who among all these does not well know That the hand of Jehovah itself has done this,”

>>THUS LEARNED PERSONS admit the wise course to take:

*** ce chap. 12 p. 152 par. 1 Who Did It First? ***

“I HAVE the suspicion,” one biologist said, “that we’re not the innovators we think we are; we’re merely the repeaters.”1*

>>Another scientist says that practically all the fundamental areas of human technology “have been opened up and utilized to advantage by living things . . . before the human mind learned to understand and master their functions.” Interestingly, he adds: “In many areas, human technology is still lagging far behind nature.”2**

*1. The Center of Life, by L. L. Larison Cudmore, 1977, pp. 23, 24.
**2. How Life Learned to Live, by Helmut Tributsch, 1982, p. 204.

**JUST 1 EXAMPLE:

AIR CONDITIONING. Modern technology cools many homes. But long before, termites also cooled theirs, and they still do. Their nest is in the center of a large mound. From it, warm air rises into a network of air ducts near the surface. There stale air diffuses out the porous sides, and fresh cool air seeps in and descends into an air chamber at the bottom of the mound. From there it circulates into the nest. Some mounds have openings at the bottom where fresh air comes in, and in hot weather, water brought up from underground evaporates, thus cooling the air. How do millions of blind workers coordinate their efforts to build such ingeniously designed structures? Biologist Lewis Thomas answers: “The plain fact that they exhibit something like a collective intelligence is a mystery.”3

3 The Atlantic Monthly, “Debating the Unknowable,” by Lewis Thomas, July 1981, p. 49.

Louis Pasture disproved "The Spontaneous Generation" theory:

*** ct chap. 3 p. 32 What Is the Origin of Life? ***

Many people recall Pasteur’s work in solving problems related to fermentation and to infectious disease. He also performed experiments to determine whether tiny life-forms could arise by themselves. As you may have read, Pasteur demonstrated that even minute bacteria did not form in sterilized water protected from contamination. In 1864 he announced: “Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment.” That statement remains true. No experiment has ever produced life from nonliving matter.

=========UPDATE===========

THERE IS ALWAYS a controlled intelligence for anything from the simple cell to the most complex--our brain , things do not just appear spontaneously in any situation:

*** pr section 2 p. 7 pars. 5-6 Who Can Tell Us? ***

. Molecular biologist Michael Denton comments on what has been found: “The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event.”
>>“But it is not just the complexity of living systems which is so profoundly challenging, there is also the incredible ingenuity that is so often manifest in their design.” “It is at a molecular level where . . . the genius of biological design and the perfection of the goals achieved are most pronounced.”
>>6 Denton further states: “Everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?” He also states: “Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive.” And a professor of physics, Chet Raymo, states: “I am dazzled . . . Every molecule seems miraculously contrived for its task.”

NO MATTER what object or form we have naturally or experimentally produced the same extremely careful design is always made in order to produce anything that has substance!

Answer 5

they dont, basically