Summations Only

Such thoughts are standard fare for your garden-variety, raving Darwinist space-cadet. Humans, with all their intelligence and scientific knowledge and technology, can't produce life from inanimate matter, yet you think mere chance can achieve the feat. It takes a special talent to believe such dreamy nonsense.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I'd like a reference for that please. Not quite. In your example something that IS alive is consuming non living matter and incorporating it into its body. At best life is creating life. This is entirely different to abiogenesis; dead matter creating life from dead matter.Edited by CRR, : expanded

B results in A; We see A so B could be a cause. However C and D could also be causes. You need to use inference to the best explanation. Part of that is asking how other evidence is best explained.How about an example? We see fossils in the rocks (A).
Evolution over millions of years (B) could result in fossils. A catastrophic worldwide flood (C) could result in fossils.
What else B would leave behind? If evolution takes place by innumerable small steps then despite its extreme imperfection we should see some clear cases of slow transition from one form to another. However if C is true we would expect the fossil record to show distinct gaps between forms as a general rule.
The fossil record shows only a few questionable transitions. The fossil record generally shows distinct gaps between forms.
Therefore C is a better explanation than B. The best explanation is that the fossils were left by a catastrophic worldwide flood.

That isn't a great test, because detailed transitions are very rare and hard for amateurs to research.There is a much better test, dealing with an obvious large-scale feature of the fossil record.If the fossil record shows the evolution of species over time there should be an order to the fossil record consistent with that.If the fossil record is due to the Flood, it should be ordered by factors related to the Flood (Creationists list hydrological sorting, habitat, differential escape)And these should really be quite distinct.And the result is a clear win for evolution over the Flood. It's not even close.

Not at all. The oldest fossils of what we call life are the fossils of prokaryotes. We have those fossils in WA, SA and Greenland. They are found in rocks 3 800 million to 3 500 million years old. They are not wales nor humans nor cockroaches or anything like that. They are prokaryotes. The rocks they are found in were deposited under sea water. Exhibit A.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Which is simply additional evidence that the stories in the Bible are the creation of humans and often wrong.

Nutritional science does appear to be a pretty poor representative of what science is about. Often the guidance of the day seems to be about as scientific as those back cracking guys (chiropractors). There is way too much bad information out the with MDs names attached to it.

So then you do agree that a single occurrence of spontaneous generation is not required?

It also doesn't talk about gravity, or germs...It misses quite a bit, doesn't it? It states that in what it quite clearly a myth. You don't think that snakes can talk, do you?

Curiously I think they are all equally good examples of the state of the science in 2009. I expect more have been developed since and others have been refined.The point is that it does occur by chemical processes, and that it is one of the important elements of life.[abe]Curiously a 1-minute search finds:

quote:

---

Diversification of self-replicating molecules

​

Abstract

​

How new species emerge in nature is still incompletely understood and difficult to study directly. Self-replicating molecules provide a simple model that allows us to capture the fundamental processes that occur in species formation. We have been able to monitor in real time and at a molecular level the diversification of self-replicating molecules into two distinct sets that compete for two different building blocks (‘food’) and so capture an important aspect of the process by which species may arise. The results show that the second replicator set is a descendant of the first and that both sets are kinetic products that oppose the thermodynamic preference of the system. The sets occupy related but complementary food niches. As diversification into sets takes place on the timescale of weeks and can be investigated at the molecular level, this work opens up new opportunities for experimentally investigating the process through which species arise both in real time and with enhanced detail.

---

This also begs the question of when "life" develops -- I would say when evolution begins, and that looks like these molecules qualify.I'll add this to the thread ...[/abe]EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added

Curiously I said it is what the evidence shows. If you disagree with the time then take a crack at [tid-6288]So you agree that it is a building block for what we need for a self-replicating organism. Can you tell me how we would determine when a self-replicating organism was developed? What does it need to have? When does it become "life" (and how do you define "life")? Actually they are organic molecules that are currently used in all life as we know it. Fully developed and ready to be included in a developing life form. Therefore the development of life does not need to develop these molecules, just use them. That sounds like the definition of pre-biotic ...

quote:

---

Definition of prebiotic

​

1. : of, relating to, or being chemical or environmental precursors of the origin of life
   it is possible that either the prebiotic molecules necessary for the evolution of life or the raw materials from which these molecules formed were brought to Earth by comet-like objects. Marcia Neugebauer
   ; also : existing or occurring before the origin of life
   RNA is a chemically fragile molecule, unlikely to survive the harsh prebiotic conditions. Michael Egholm et al.
   ​
2. : of, relating to, or being a prebiotic
   next-generation probiotic microbes administered along with the appropriate prebiotic nutrients to nourish them. Michael Pollan

---

Not a guess, rather it's fact. An educated guess. They exist in space, near earth and in the far reaches. All other elements and molecules seem to occur as a result of stars and nova, both making elements heavier than hydrogen and forming molecules as the nova gas clouds condense.Of course they could be planted in space by god/s seeding the universe to create life. That requires evidence of god/s to be more credible than the nova hypothesis.Enjoy

So you reject astronomy too? Because what astronomers are seeing today is what happened a long time ago.

That is what your entire argument is about, semantics.

That would be superstition.

For modern scientists it is a conclusion, not an assumption. We have the evidence demonstrating common ancestry.