Origin of Life 1 -- Abiogenesis

Three videos discussing the theoretical idea of abiogenesis. I am not a young earth creationist and I'm not particularly making an argument for creationism or intelligent design.

I do however make fun of the current scientific creation myths of abiogenesis.

These videos discuss how atoms become amino acids which become proteins and finally can be organized into a living single cell organism.

The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• Abiogenesis
• life
• origin
• evolution
• science
• dna
• genetics
• atheist
• god
• biology
• rna
• religion
• creation
• intelligent
• design
• ID

[AndyG792]

If abiogenesis could occur, it would have to form all Left handed amino acids, including the DNA and RNA as well as the little machines (which are made of proteins) to form the protiens as well as other functions. Since life is made from all Left handed amino acids, and scientists can not force amino acids to form only left handed, it is life to come about by chance. Only a powerful intelligence could be responsible for life and the Bible says God spoke and it was so.

[rossini55]

As far as Abiogenesis is concerned, although there are various hypothises, they all do agree that it probably started chemically adapting from simple to more complex organisms.

[RichardFriend48]

@dmnemaine I found a good youtube video about why chemical evolution or abiogenesis could not have happended. It has to do with genentic instructions in the cell. Go to YouTube & do a search for "Dean Kenyon PhD Speaks Out Against Evolutionary Dogmatism". Dean Kenyon co-wrote the book on Biochemical Predestination back in the late 60's/early 70's and has changed his mind. He now says that "We have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells"

[dmnemaine]

@RichardFriend48, Evolution is not a myth. It has been observed. There is a multitude of evidence that has been found supporting it. Besides, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Two completely different things. Back to abiogenesis. Evidence pointing to it has absolutely been observed. You are wrong.

[RichardFriend48]

@dmnemaine But no one has observed Abiogenesis. Watch all 3 videos of Origin of Life -- Abiogenesis videos from this guy. He does a good job at explaining that naturalistic scienctists have come up with their own ideas (basically guesses, which really are no better than some myths) about how life began. Also, know that there are many scientists who don't like what the Bible says about creation, because it conflicts with the myths of evolution they have been taught in their science classes.

[dmnemaine]

@RichardFriend48,

Science isn't about "views". It's about experimenting, researching, and observing. The fact that there are some people out there who don't like what the experimenting, researching, and observing produces because they think it conflicts with their particular religious belief is beside the point.

[TheSatanicView]

Ok, I looked at some of the comments and went back to watch. Two more things. 1: The only things necessary for life to start are a way to multiply and a way to get more material. This is very important to understand. 2: Science doesn't say "This is how life started", only "This is how it could have started" and they give very sound evidence. Oh and creationists DO claim that they KNOW how life was created.

[TheSatanicView]

I watched your video until 1:33 mark. I had to stop because you are discussing a scientific theory and you don't even understand what the word theory means. It's not just some asshole saying something you know, and it's not just some guess. To put it in perspective for you I will name some theories; The earth revolves around the sun.... I don't even wat to go on, do some research and learn vocabulary befor you make a video.

[Terncote]

@psychetruth "The current scientific models of abiogensis are actually simply attempts to explain how life could have come about with out the causation or intervention of any agent."

Wrong.

Current models are an attempt to uncover the natural agents, qualities, conditions and processes that can produce life by natural, mechanistic means.

Creationists impose their prejudice and pretend that the research really about disproving their unfalsifiable claims. That is disingenuous and arrogant.