Reading comprehension letting you down or just a straw man? I never said that, no need for a lengthy diatribe about my reading comprehension, a post number where I did will do. If you'd like to know my opinion on the probability of life arising through natual proccesses (which I assume you're referring to), I would say such a thing is impossible to calculate, there are just too many unkown variables..... the atmospheric conditions prevelant at the time, the chemical ingredients necessary, the reactions that must have taken place etc. I don't pretend to know the answers but there is plenty of scientific research being done in the area....
In 2001 Louis Allamandola demonstrated that organic material can be synthesized in deep space using a "Chill vacuum chamber"--a lot of biomolecules: nitriles, ethers, alcohols, ring-like hydrocarbons, and others.[8] [9]
In a complementary experiment, Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."[10]
In 2010 Craig Venter
and his colleagues inserted a wholly artificial chromosome into a bacterial cell and produced the first artificial life form (a.k.a. "dial-a-genome").[11] While it may seem like artificial abiogenesis, it nevertheless involved some major cheating: the artificial chromosome was constructed using gene sequences of an existing organism. As of 2011, Lee Cronin at the University of Glasgow is trying to start an evolutionary process in polyoxometalate-based "cells".[12]
In 2014 a group of researchers managed to produce all four components of RNA by simulating an asteroid impact in primordial conditions.[13]
A 2015 paper showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light. [14]
In 2015 the lander Philae
discovered 16 organic compounds, four of which had never been detected on a comet before, on the comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko. Many of the organic compounds are important building-blocks of life.[15] [16][17] In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.[18][19]
A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.[20][21]
Maybe have a read of this one:
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html
Obviously professional scientists see some merit in the idea.
I don't see why this is a particular issue anyway, you yourself suggested that Geneisis is neither a scientific treatise nor specific enough to suggest how the creating was done, which I agree with.
It does raise the question of why you feel the need to insist that Genesis is confirmed by science in the first place - which leads us back to the OP. Why reject evidenced scientific facts to try and demonstrate that what is basically a poem about the ancient Hebrew relationship with God is a factual history of our origins.
Before complain that you aren't rejecting science please see the next post.....
Upvote
0
