The creator did it.

[Subduction Zone]

Are you a Christian?

No, I was at one time, and I accepted evolution then. I could not believe in a God that lied. Do you believe that God lied?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you Rapture man for dishing to them their own source of information...that was great. And thank you for not using their ad hominem ways of arguing, like the picture below illustrates...

View attachment 26876

No, he used a dishonest source and got caught at it. In a debate one does not just link to a source especially one that is known to be dishonest and requires its workers to swear not to use the scientific method. That alone makes the source useless in a scientific debate.

 

[Polymath257]

For the sake of room, This was from one of the websites you supplied:

3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.
What, if anything here leads you to believe that abiogenesis is not impossible? Your own source!

No, what this shows is that we cannot know the specifics of the process that happened on the early Earth. That is, unfortunately, probably true. But that doesn't make the work on abiogenesis scientifically worthless. That is because, even if we cannot know specifics, we may well be able to find various possibilities and even eliminate some of them.

it is fairly common in historical sciences not to be able to say with certainty which of several possibilities actually happened. Nonetheless, the science can frequently limit the range of historical events that need to be considered. This is as true of abiogenesis as it is for Hannibal crossing the Alps.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh brother! Tell you what, read the above post! Everything you just said here is my exact point in that, if something fails the scientific method, it should be abandoned. After over 150 years and all of the science and technology guess what? Abiogenesis leading to macro evolution is IMPOSSILE! It's not just me saying it, it's honest scientists saying it! Read above!

Abiogenesis has never "failed the scientific method". And the study into abiogenesis using the scientific method has a much shorter history than 150 years. We could not even begin to study abiogenesis until we began to have an understanding of life on the cellular level. There has been successful experiment after successful experiment dealing with the topic. There have also been failed experiments and scientists have learned from them too. Perhaps we need to go over the scientific method and how it applies to abiogenesis.

And it is a pity that you did not understand the article that you quoted to @ecco . There was nothing in that article that would lead to a conclusion that abiogenesis was impossible. In fact it told you that it is likely that there were many paths to life, which means that we will probably never be sure of the exact path that was followed.

Here is a simple analogy. Think of a trip from New York to L.A. by road. We know that a person took that trip. We may never know the exact route that he took. Not knowing the route that he took does not make his journey impossible. You are trying to claim that because we do not know, and very likely will never know, the exact route from non-life to life that the trip was impossible. That is a major logical fail.

 

[ecco]

Does anyone here object to the notion that a person (me) can believe in a God who has created all things and in science that explains how things are designed and function?

That falls into the category of {Rhett Butler} "Frankly, my dear, I...".

 

[ecco]

For the sake of room, This was from one of the websites you supplied:

3. Is the origin of life problem soluble in principle?

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one. Uncovering that facet would require specifying the original chemical system from which the process of abiogenesis began, together with the chemical pathway from that initiating system right through the extensive array of intermediate structures leading to simplest life. Regretfully, however, much of that historic information will probably never be known. Evolutionary processes are contingent, suggesting that any number of feasible pathways could have led from inanimate matter to earliest life, provided, of course, that those pathways were consistent with the underlying laws of physics and chemistry. The difficulty arises because historic events, once they have taken place, can only be revealed if their occurrence was recorded in some manner. Indeed, it is this historic facet of abiogenesis that makes the OOL problem so much more intractable than the parallel question of biological evolution. Biological evolution also has its historic and ahistoric facets. But whereas for biological evolution the historic record is to a degree accessible through palaeobiologic and phylogenetic studies, for the process of abiogenesis those methodologies have proved uninformative; there is no known geological record pertaining to prebiotic systems, and phylogenetic studies become less informative the further back one goes in attempting to trace out ancestral lineages. Phylogenetic studies presume the existence of organismal individuality and the genealogical (vertical) transfer of genetic information. However, the possibility that earliest life may have been communal [14] and dominated by horizontal gene transfer [15–17] suggests that information regarding the evolutionary stages that preceded the last universal common ancestor [18] would have to be considered highly speculative. Accordingly, the significance of such studies to the characterization of early life, let alone prebiotic systems, becomes highly uncertain.


The conclusion seems clear: speculation regarding the precise historic path from animate to inanimate—the identity of specific materials that were available at particular physical locations on the prebiotic Earth, together with the chemical structures of possible intermediate stages along the long road to life—may lead to propositions that are, though thought-provoking and of undeniable interest, effectively unfalsifiable, and therefore of limited scientific value.

What, if anything here leads you to believe that abiogenesis is not impossible? Your own source!

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article.
The origin of life: what we know, what we can know and what we will never know

It's really sad that you had to take the same approach so may YECs take when trying to argue against science: Quote out of context.

The very next paragraph following what you quoted states:

Given that awkward reality, the focus of OOL research needs to remain on the ahistoric aspects—the principles that would explain the remarkable transformation of inanimate matter to simple life. There is good reason to think that the emergence of life on the Earth did not just involve a long string of random chemical events that fortuitously led to a simple living system. If life had emerged in such an arbitrary way, then the mechanistic question of abiogenesis would be fundamentally without explanation—a stupendously improbable chemical outcome whose likelihood of repetition would be virtually zero. However, the general view, now strongly supported by recent studies in systems chemistry, is that the process of abiogenesis was governed by underlying physico-chemical principles, and the central goal of OOL studies should therefore be to delineate those principles.​

Did you somehow miss the significance of the beginning part of the section you posted?
(with my emphases to help you understand)

In addressing the OOL question, it first needs to be emphasized that the question has two distinct facets—historic and ahistoric, and the ability to uncover each of these two facets is quite different. Uncovering the historic facet is the more problematic one

​

Did you not understand that the "conclusion" referred to the historic facet only? Did you read just far enough to where you thought you had found a "gotcha"? If you kept reading, you would have come across statements like...

• In the context of the OOL debate, there is one single and central historic fact on which there is broad agreement—that life's emergence was initiated by some autocatalytic chemical system.
• The recognition that a distinctly different stability kind, DKS, is applicable to both chemical and biological replicators, together with the fact that both replicator kinds express similar reaction characteristics, leads to the profound conclusion that the so-called chemical phase leading to simplest life and the biological phase appear to be one continuous physico-chemical process...
• Precisely the same process will need to operate with respect to the OOL problem. The DKS concept, simple in essence, does outline in the broadest terms the physico-chemical basis for abiogenesis. But that broad outline needs to be elaborated on through experimental investigation, so that the detailed mechanisms by which the DKS of simple chemical replicating systems could increase would be clarified. Already at this early stage, central elements of those mechanisms are becoming evident.

In conclusion, it seems probably that we will never know the precise historic path by which life on the Earth emerged, but, very much in the Darwinian tradition, it seems we can now specify the essence of the ahistoric principles by which that process came about. Just as Darwin, in the very simplest of terms, pointed out how natural selection enabled simple life to evolve into complex life, so the recently proposed general theory of evolution [1,7] points out in simplest terms how simple, but fragile, replicating systems could have complexified into the intricate chemical systems of life.​

 

[ecco]

Oh brother! Tell you what, read the above post! ... Abiogenesis leading to macro evolution is IMPOSSILE! It's not just me saying it, it's honest scientists saying it! Read above!

Read my rebuttal of your "above" post showing how you intentionally took a "conclusion out of context.

 

[ecco]

Thank you Rapture man for dishing to them their own source of information...that was great. And thank you for not using their ad hominem ways of arguing, like the picture below illustrates...

I guess you too are OK with intentionally taking things out of context.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

And the answer is WE DO NOT KNOW how life originated. We are TRYING to figure that out. We have a fair amount of information, and the best ideas we have point to the development of an RNA world prior to the current DNA world of life. But,we are STILL WORKING ON IT.

And the answer is WE DO NOT KNOW how life originated. We are TRYING to figure that out. We have a fair amount of information, and the best ideas we have point to the development of an RNA world prior to the current DNA world of life. But,we are STILL WORKING ON IT.

We may not KNOW, but we certainly have a few good ideas. I'm very partial to the chemical and molecular theories posited. That is, that the origin of life on earth was the result of a slow chemical and molecular process, which occurred from pre-existing non-living materials such as, mud, clay, hay, etc. This led to self-replicating molecules, amino acids, proteins, and the precursors to nuclear materials and RNA. This seems more common sense than science, since all life is composed of all the elements existing before life. I don't think we will ever be able to duplicate the exact early environment of an early primitive earth. Nor, are we able to observe biogenesis occurring on another earth-like planet. So clearly we do not know, and are still working on it..

My point to the poster was not his views on Abiogenesis. It was his explanation of how he believed life evolved on this planet. Since he seemed to have a problem with the term "evolved", I restated my question and asked how did he think all life got here. In hindsight, a very poor choice of words. So, I understand the confusion. Since the poster was determined to deposit a category error(living vs. non-living things), I wanted an example of any living thing that can be directly linked to an Intelligent Designer. Since watches, buildings, art, bridges, etc., are all directly linked to a human designer, what living organisms can be directly linked to a non-human designer? Also, are there examples of living things that are not intelligently designed by a Designer?

I don't really expect an answer to my questions. The poster is not interested in degrees of certainty. He is only interested in absolutes as a substitute for certainty. Not absolute, not certain. Adding to "SZ's" comments, "You don't fully understand the BB, therefore Newton is wrong". "You don't absolutely understand Abiogenesis, therefore Evolution is wrong". "You don't absolutely understand Evolution, therefore God did it". This seems to be the level of logic necessary, for all creationist, flat-earthers, Intelligent Designers, and for all those whose beliefs that are threatened by the reality and demands of science.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Does anyone here object to the notion that a person (me) can believe in a God who has created all things and in science that explains how things are designed and function?

It is not a notion, it is a fact. Because of how our brain processes external information by compartmentalization, our subjective conceptions can be easily inaccurate or skewed. This is why very intelligent people can believe in very stupid things. As we grow mentally and intellectually, we learn to distinguish between what is fact and real, and what is fiction and fantasy. If the positive gratification is reinforced enough(power, attention, ego, position, security, etc.), then our cognition(knowledge, understanding, and reasoning), can easily be manipulated to fool ourselves. Maybe that is why not many believers assert that magic hair, virgin birth, talking animals, magic tree, human resurrection, Noah's Flood story, and the entire Book of Revelation, are all absolutely real.

Science does not presuppose that any supernatural being has created all things, or gave all things purpose and meaning. That would make science subjective and using "top-down logic". Science simply tries to explain objectively just how natural phenomena work. It's not interested in the "Who". Science has always been the best explanation of the time, until it is replaced by a better explanation

 

[Rapture Era]

No, what this shows is that we cannot know the specifics of the process that happened on the early Earth. That is, unfortunately, probably true. But that doesn't make the work on abiogenesis scientifically worthless. That is because, even if we cannot know specifics, we may well be able to find various possibilities and even eliminate some of them.

it is fairly common in historical sciences not to be able to say with certainty which of several possibilities actually happened. Nonetheless, the science can frequently limit the range of historical events that need to be considered. This is as true of abiogenesis as it is for Hannibal crossing the Alps.

I'm not saying work on abiogenesis is scientifically worthless, by all means continue. However, this work is not yielding anything to support abiogenesis. I mean, I don't know how to make it any more plain, but, if you are going to use science as your standard of truth, and it is telling you, at least at this point abiogenesis is not possible, wouldn't you agree that you cannot have molecules to man if the science is telling you that this process is not possible? When do you accept the fact that until it does produce some kind of truthful support, you need to look elsewhere for a more reasonable and logical alternative? I dont know if you have ever really studied molecular genetics, but, what we do know about these systems at this point, is there is agreement on both sides that the beginning of life from a natural stand point is proving to be impossible. So if we are being honest, we should accept this fact. Now, you may not like the results for whatever reason, but it doesnt change the fact that at this point life starting from non-life just doesn't happen. The only reasonable alternative is special supernatural creation from an immense intelligence. When you take a closer look at biological life forms and what their physiology consists of, and their ability to reproduce perfectly in their own unique way, you have to ask yourself, is this the result of blind chance? The complexity and immense diversity of every living organism on our planet seems to overwhelm ones ability to conclude it happened by random chance, random natural selection of meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent matter does not produce the incredible life forms we see all around us! . It's just too complex at the micro level. One is left with facing and contemplating the reality of genetic information needed produce all life forms. The creation process fits the data more accurately. We have been told by the creator through his Word (the bible) that he is the only one who created the universe, all of its laws by which it operate. You might not want to believe in God and all he says about creation and that's OK, that is your choice. But also know this, if you are wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not saying work on abiogenesis is scientifically worthless, by all means continue. However, this work is not yielding anything to support abiogenesis. I mean, I don't know how to make it any more plain, but, if you are going to use science as your standard of truth, and it is telling you, at least at this point abiogenesis is not possible, wouldn't you agree that you cannot have molecules to man if the science is telling you that this process is not possible?

When and where has scientific research lead us to believe abiogenesis is impossible?

When do you accept the fact that until it does produce some kind of truthful support, you need to look elsewhere for a more reasonable and logical alternative?

Just because a certain possibility is ruled out doesn't suggest another possibility to be more likely. All propositions stand entirely on the evidence supporting them.

I dont know if you have ever really studied molecular genetics, but, what we do know about these systems at this point, is there is agreement on both sides that the beginning of life from a natural stand point is proving to be impossible. So if we are being honest, we should accept this fact. Now, you may not like the results for whatever reason, but it doesnt change the fact that at this point life starting from non-life just doesn't happen.

Again, could you please present a reference for this?

The only reasonable alternative is special supernatural creation from an immense intelligence.

How and why? What evidence is there to support this?

When you take a closer look at biological life forms and what their physiology consists of, and their ability to reproduce perfectly in their own unique way, you have to ask yourself, is this the result of blind chance?

False dichotomy. The choices are not strictly limited to "intelligent creation" versus "blind chance". We live in a Universe comprised of physical matter interacting in various forms under conditions of physical laws. Life can merely be a result of this process, not "blind chance".

The complexity and immense diversity of every living organism on our planet seems to overwhelm ones ability to conclude it happened by random chance, random natural selection of meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent matter does not produce the incredible life forms we see all around us!

This is a claim you have to demonstrate. Reproduction is a natural, unguided, unintelligent process, yet it seems to have no problem whatsoever producing complex, intelligent life.

It's just too complex at the micro level. One is left with facing and contemplating the reality of genetic information needed produce all life forms. The creation process fits the data more accurately.

How? What tests can you perform to determine intelligent causation? What could falsify it?

We have been told by the creator through his Word (the bible) that he is the only one who created the universe, all of its laws by which it operate.

Can you demonstrate, scientifically, that the Bible is God's word? Why not the Qur'an, or the Torah?

You might not want to believe in God and all he says about creation and that's OK, that is your choice. But also know this, if you are wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . .

What if you're wrong about the Qur'an or the Torah?

 

[osgart]

Its not like abiogenesis isnt a philosophical approach. It is! Its methodological naturalism. That rides on the assumption that life comes from non living matter.

Since you dont know that abiogenesis is fact. You must test the hypothesis that all life emerges from non living matter. That somehow a physical cause is the sole responsible cause of life. Thats a philosophy.

Life could very well be an eternally existing vital force and you wouldnt recognize that force in any way. And there is cause to accept that nature demonstrates intentionality in living creatures by its appearances.

And the issue of consciousness is also a mystery thats assumed to be understood as the sole process of physical causes. A philosophy!

Consciousness is abstract in its qualities, and by appearances seems to be an intelligent construct itself. Memory serves reason, and reason serves survival. Conception is a process that seeks to understand and make diligent use of the surroundings. Function is for purposes and can only come from intentionality in its makings and not from mindless aimless processes. That glazes over the issue of function and form in the nature of living creatures. As if all function was totally unpurposed processes, again, a philosophical assumption.

 

[Looncall]

Its not like abiogenesis isnt a philosophical approach. It is! Its methodological naturalism. That rides on the assumption that life comes from non living matter.

Since you dont know that abiogenesis is fact. You must test the hypothesis that all life emerges from non living matter. That somehow a physical cause is the sole responsible cause of life. Thats a philosophy.

Life could very well be an eternally existing vital force and you wouldnt recognize that force in any way. And there is cause to accept that nature demonstrates intentionality in living creatures by its appearances.

And the issue of consciousness is also a mystery thats assumed to be understood as the sole process of physical causes. A philosophy!

Consciousness is abstract in its qualities, and by appearances seems to be an intelligent construct itself. Memory serves reason, and reason serves survival. Conception is a process that seeks to understand and make diligent use of the surroundings. Function is for purposes and can only come from intentionality in its makings and not from mindless aimless processes. That glazes over the issue of function and form in the nature of living creatures. As if all function was totally unpurposed processes, again, a philosophical assumption.

Ho-hum. The usual creationist baseless assumptions. How do you demonstrate that function cannot arise from natural processes? Darwin disposed of that balderdash long, long ago.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not saying work on abiogenesis is scientifically worthless, by all means continue. However, this work is not yielding anything to support abiogenesis. I mean, I don't know how to make it any more plain, but, if you are going to use science as your standard of truth, and it is telling you, at least at this point abiogenesis is not possible, wouldn't you agree that you cannot have molecules to man if the science is telling you that this process is not possible? When do you accept the fact that until it does produce some kind of truthful support, you need to look elsewhere for a more reasonable and logical alternative? I dont know if you have ever really studied molecular genetics, but, what we do know about these systems at this point, is there is agreement on both sides that the beginning of life from a natural stand point is proving to be impossible. So if we are being honest, we should accept this fact. Now, you may not like the results for whatever reason, but it doesnt change the fact that at this point life starting from non-life just doesn't happen. The only reasonable alternative is special supernatural creation from an immense intelligence. When you take a closer look at biological life forms and what their physiology consists of, and their ability to reproduce perfectly in their own unique way, you have to ask yourself, is this the result of blind chance? The complexity and immense diversity of every living organism on our planet seems to overwhelm ones ability to conclude it happened by random chance, random natural selection of meaningless, purposeless, unintelligent matter does not produce the incredible life forms we see all around us! . It's just too complex at the micro level. One is left with facing and contemplating the reality of genetic information needed produce all life forms. The creation process fits the data more accurately. We have been told by the creator through his Word (the bible) that he is the only one who created the universe, all of its laws by which it operate. You might not want to believe in God and all he says about creation and that's OK, that is your choice. But also know this, if you are wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On the contrary, the results we *do* have from abiogenesis research show that many things that were thought to be obstacles to the origin of life naturally are not actually so. As more research is being done, more and more of these proposed obstacles have been shown to be easily circumvented. That alone says that we have to seriously consider the natural explanation of how things came about.

But, let's face it, invoking a supernatural is *never* a good 'explanation'. It is ultimately a 'just so' story because it cannot be tested. The details of procedure for creating life can never be determined. That is almost the definition of a supernatural: it cannot be tested and we cannot know what rules it works by (if we could, it would be natural).

This, by the way, is a separate question from the one asking if there was an intelligence involved in the formation of life on Earth. It is quite possible that we will find that life can only come about naturally in circumstances that are not at all like those of the early Earth. We could find that given what we know about the early Earth, no natural process could have produced life. In that case, it isn't unreasonable to say that some sort of intelligence was involved. But this only pushes off the question of the *first* life to another part of our universe. At *some* point there was no life (say, right after the Big Bang) and at some later point (now) there is life. That means that at some point non-life became life.

But, yes, after an initial self-replicator that is subject to mutation and natural selection, we *do* expect to find increasingly complex structures forming. We *do* expect to see the amazing complexities of life that we see around us arising from these processes.

I've noticed that creatioists and IDers like to talk about the workings of 'random chance'. They seem to think that the laws of physics and chemistry are just 'random' and that there is no inherent structure to the atoms and molecules that make up the universe. But, of course, we know this is not the case. It is NOT 'random chance' that produced the first life: it was chemistry and physics working under the same laws that we know and understand now.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its not like abiogenesis isnt a philosophical approach. It is! Its methodological naturalism.

No, it isn't. Asserting that life arises naturally doesn't imply that nature is necessarily all there is, as said nature can still be the expression or intent of an otherwise undetectable force.

Since you dont know that abiogenesis is fact. You must test the hypothesis that all life emerges from non living matter. That somehow a physical cause is the sole responsible cause of life. Thats a philosophy.

That's not a philosophy. It's called a theory.

Life could very well be an eternally existing vital force and you wouldnt recognize that force in any way.

If that is the case, then what is the evidence for it?

And there is cause to accept that nature demonstrates intentionality in living creatures by its appearances.

Could you provide examples?

And the issue of consciousness is also a mystery thats assumed to be understood as the sole process of physical causes. A philosophy!

Again, no. A theory.

Consciousness is abstract in its qualities, and by appearances seems to be an intelligent construct itself.

How do you judge an intelligent construct "by appearances"?

Memory serves reason, and reason serves survival. Conception is a process that seeks to understand and make diligent use of the surroundings. Function is for purposes and can only come from intentionality in its makings and not from mindless aimless processes.

This is a claim you have to demonstrate. By all accounts, function has no problem arising from natural processes.

That glazes over the issue of function and form in the nature of living creatures. As if all function was totally unpurposed processes, again, a philosophical assumption.

Except no such assumption needs to be made to accept abiogenesis, and you're presenting a false dichotomy. Things can still have purposeful processes and not be a result of intelligence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since science/observation has repeatedly shown that something does not come from nothing and life does not come from nonliving things can you blame someone for concluding that there is some sort if creator even if you dont believe that? Once this door is open why couldnt someone simply believe " my creator did it"? So what if someone is not interested in the exact processes used.

People are free to do just that and believe as they choose. This is a recognized freedom and protected in the constitutions of many countries.

One point I would make regarding your opening statements is that science has demonstrated that existing life does not arise fully formed from inert and non-living matter. In other words, spontaneous generation does not take place.

That simple life could arise from non-living chemical processes and events has not been determined. In fact, the description of God creating man is a description of life forming from non-living matter. In that case, it is believed to have been under the will and action of God, but aside from that difference, the essence of the issue roughly aligns with current scientific hypotheses.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

About 350 years ago Francisco Redi came up with a way to disprove spontaneous generation. Since then; atheists have brought back the concept under the name "abiogenesis". It makes no sense however.

Spontaneous generation was a creationist belief that living things could reproduce from non-living matter, fully formed. This belief was refuted by the work of Redi, Pasteur and others using scientific experiments.

Abiogenesis is not the same concept and is a set of hypotheses about how life originated from chemical processes. Under these hypotheses, living things are not proposed to emerge fully formed and in the present state that we currently observe. Under these hypotheses, life is proposed to have emerged in a step-wise, gradual process over a long period of time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That article literally starts off repeating my claim then tries to put forth A THEORY of how it could have happened. What you cant find a video or demonstration showing one of these theories actually working? Pasteuer is known for proving spontaneous combustion does not happen. Why mention him?

That would be a heck of a video.

I would surmise that Pasteur is mentioned due to your previously illustrated confusion between spontaneous generation--a creationist concept--and abiogenesis--a set of scientific hypotheses about the origin of life. Neither wishing to or capable of speaking for Christine, I will have to read further to see if she meant to convey additional ideas or information for her post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

People seriously i said " science/ OBSERVATION has repeatedly shown that NOTHING DOES NOT TURN TO SOMETHING" has anyone seen this happen? Why are people saying "science has not shown that"?

We can say that something has not been observed to form from nothing, but it has not been demonstrated that something cannot arise from nothing. We do not know.