Summations Only

If only facts about the origin of life were taught in school the discussion would be extremely brief. The only fact is, no one knows how life began. Why not teach the students in a non bias manor as many major ideas about it as we can. Allow the students to excursive critical thinking skills

there are no facts about how life bagan, only speculations. there is no way to conduct proper experiments now becuase there is just not enough information about what things were like on earth when life started.

I have, and it is was, short however the text did provide ideas on what the atmosphere was like, what may have been the first cell wall, and what could have been a template for the first rna. even scientist disagree and have different views on all of these subject. all that I am saying is if information and ideas are being covered that are mostly speculation why discriminate. Some of the things we believe now are wrong. have you ever sang the wrong lyrics to a song. If you can be wrong on something as simple as a song imagine what big thing you may have mis-understood. That is why everyone should learn both sides of a discussion with an open mind. What makes any method more important to teach than the other? May be it is personal belief but I honestly don't beleive that any speculation on how life began can be scientific. How can an experiment be conducted when the variables are not even known.

What do you mean by normal? what we consider a normal chemical reaction may have been abnormal at that time. nobody knows what percentage of oxigen and carbon were in the atmosphere. nobody knows the percentage nitrogen that was in a noble gas form or if a large amount was bound to other elements. What do you mean by common? Nobody has ever abserved chemical reactions turn into life where previously there was none.
If life began thru un guided chemical reactions it would be anything but normal and common.

but you see life could not have formed in the same environment we have today. It is too volatile the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere by itself is enough to disrupt the chemical reactions needed for abiogenesis. That is why many models state that earths early atmosphere had much less oxygen in it, but there is no other evidence to suggest what amount of oxygen was in the air 4 billion years ago. photosynthesis is a very common chemical reaction now but how common was it 4 billion years ago. I agree with you that chemical reaction happen the same way today as they always have but common chemical reactions change depending on when a where one looks. Were the chemical reactions needed for abiogenesis ever common? From my understanding of entropy simple chemicals such as amino acids don't usually form into more complex compounds like proteins, ribosomes, dna and rna by themselves. in fact the exact opposite is a common chemical reaction, complex parts break down to more simple ones.

For me abiogenesis falls into the same category as ID. neither one has the scientific evidence to support it. Where is the evidence? Aristotle believed in spontaneous generation of life but by the 19 hundreds there was enough scientific observation to form the law of biogenesis and disprove the spontaneous generation of life. Back then we knew that life did not come from non living objects so why do we believe it today?I believe the unanswerable question of "Where did life come from?" will remain that way. the best anyone could do is make a decision to put their faith in a scientist or a religion but be honest you do not know one way or the other. the scientist doesn't know for he has no substantial evidence. the religion doesn't know either. its all based on faith so maybe both should not be taught in school.

Thank you but I know what photosynthesis is. I was trying to prove a point that common chemical reactions today were not always common. if you would have read prior posts than you would know that someone told me life began from common normal chemical reaction.However you did understand my point when you said, "we don't know what the conditions on earth were before life." since we don't know what things were like we can only speculate, and when someone tells me the only method for life to begin is thru common normal chemical reactions i have to disagree furthermore i would like to point out that they don't know exactly what a common normal reaction was 4 billion years ago.

Man i need some support here. Am I the only believer? it seems that way. I don't have time to reply to every one unless i spend more time than I plan to in this forum. Please don't believe that you out witted or stumped me if i don't reply even if it is the case. I want you to believe I just didn't have time to get to it.

How do you know what it was like. were you there?

Thank you this is good information. This supports the early earth atmosphere model that i was talking about. stating that oxygen did not enter the atmosphere until bacteria released O2 as waist. but how do we know there was no O2 in the air before that? I was taught that there wasn't in school, but how can we know?I was taught that mars was formed similarly to earth. before mars cooled down the magma flowed beneath its crust this motion around a solid core created electromagnetism that protected its atmosphere from being blown into space by solar radiation. I can see that the surface of mars is oxidized meaning to me that its atmosphere must of had oxygen in it. if earth and mars were created similarly and mars had oxygen in its atmosphere then earth should have had it as well. If this is so, why do some scientists teach that oxygen originated into the atmosphere by organisms? and again how do they know it?here is an interesting tangent i just though of. If the way oxygen entered earths atmosphere was thru photosynthetic organisms, maybe the same happened on mars

This question seems like it is supposed to lead me to a certain kind of response but i never said that i disagreed with what is being taught.I didn't actually mean that abiogenesis should not be taught. i merely wanted show that, ID is not being taught in schools because of lack of scientific evidence. and that if we applied that same judgement on abiogenesis than it would not be taught either.and dude why are you so mean? please stop with the name calling and IQ judgments. you can write a post without it. Maybe just infer it i might not even catch on.

Thanks Chuck. It's nice to be here.