My Abiogenesis Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Discuss abiogenesis in this thread without mentioning evolution.

 

[mnorian]

Discuss abiogenesis in this thread without mentioning evolution.

Well; seeing as how the definition of abiogenesis is:

"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"

• historical
  another term for spontaneous generation."

Wouldn't that be impossible?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Discuss abiogenesis in this thread without mentioning evolution.

Abiogenesis is a field of scientific enquiry that researches the beginning of life, and the probable paths that led to this occurance.



Since it has nothing to do with that other topic, it's Easy, See!?

 

[LoricaLady]

"Probable paths..." Theories are built on words like "probable...likely...we can infer...maybe...must have...could have...millions and billions of unobservable and unverifiable and evidenceless years ago..." Theories are just fine if they have some actual data to back them up. They are pseudo science when they not only have no such data, but ignore the data that exists.

The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. If that is not scientific fact, kindly provide data to support your contention. Again, theories are fine if they don't ignore, dismiss, and contradict the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. Therefore there is no data, no evidence, no science to support so called abiogenesis, i.e. life from inorganic matter.

The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the physical components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them and put life back into them?

And before someone talks about the Miller and Urey experiment from the 60s, uh, they didn't get any life either. However, tons of peer reviews some decades ago claimed M & U showed life could come from inorganic matter in the conveniently untestable and invisible past. "Could have come" of course falls into the theoretical again. M & U didn't get life! They got the kinds of amino acids that destroy life. They got a few amino acids. So what? I have some amino acids in my supplement bottles. They don't gather the other complex and numerous components needed for a cell. They don't organize such parts into "simple" cells - actually more complex than a block of factories, with nano machines that make other nano machines - and spring to life.

If M & U got any life, give data to support that. Don't just tell me what they "could have shown...might prove could be true...probably happened in the misty, murky, unavailable past...." etc .

Life comes from life. Life of the same kind. Every time. Period. That's what the data shows. If you prefer to believe in what has never been observed, and flat out contradicts what has been observed throughout history, that's your choice. Don't try to foist it off on me, though. I like real science, thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all.

That's because science is myopic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't that be impossible?

Yes.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Discuss abiogenesis in this thread without mentioning evolution.

There are a variety of experiments that demonstrate the production of basic building blocks required for life (amino acids, nucleic acids e.g) from conditions that simulate the primeval conditions on Earth. While not abiogenesis, these illustrate that the initial components are readily produced under appropriate conditions.

There is also some evidence to support RNA-based "life" (self-replication being the chief requirement) as a precursor to life as we understand it.

 

[LoricaLady]

That's because science is myopic.

Real science reveals the real truth because it uses real data, not fantasies. Pseudo science ignores the real data and embraces fantasies that defy the real data.

 

[Sine Nomine]

"Probable paths..." Theories are built on words like "probable...likely...we can infer...maybe...must have...could have...millions and billions of unobservable and unverifiable and evidenceless years ago..." Theories are just fine if they have some actual data to back them up. They are pseudo science when they not only have no such data, but ignore the data that exists.

The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. If that is not scientific fact, kindly provide data to support your contention. Again, theories are fine if they don't ignore, dismiss, and contradict the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. Therefore there is no data, no evidence, no science to support so called abiogenesis, i.e. life from inorganic matter.

The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them and put life back into them?

And before someone talks about the Miller and Urey experiment from the 60s, uh, they didn't get any life either. However, tons of peer reviews some decades ago claimed M & U showed life could come from inorganic matter in the conveniently untestable and invisible past. "Could have come" of course falls into the theoretical again. M & U didn't get life! They got the kinds of amino acids that destroy life. They got a few amino acids. So what? I have some amino acids in my supplement bottles. They don't gather the other complex and numerous components needs for a cell. They don't organize such parts into "simple" cells - actually more complex than a block of factories, with nano machines that make other nano machines - and spring to life.

If M & U got any life, give data to support that. Don't just tell me what they "could have shown...might prove could be true...probably happened in the misty murky unavailable past...." etc .

Life comes from life. Life of the same kind .Every time. Period. That's what the data shows. If you prefer to believe in what has never been observed, and flat out contradicts what has been observed throughout history, that's your choice. Don't try to foist it off on me, though. I like real science, thank you.

You say you like real science, yet you are quick to claim proof for a negative (life never comes from non-life). Science can't prove negatives, just state that they are highly improbable.

Abiogenesis is biological life arising from the non-biological. All Christians accept abiogenesis by faith--God who is spirit (abiologic) created biological life. QED

Science also has evidence of abiogenesis. There was a time where no biological life could exist (a hydrogen only universe followed quickly by hydrogen and helium) and now we have life. Thus, abiogenesis must have occurred--we just don't know how and cannot replicate it in a laboratory. QED

 

[LoricaLady]

There are a variety of experiments that demonstrate the production of basic building blocks required for life (amino acids, nucleic acids e.g) from conditions that simulate the primeval conditions on Earth. While not abiogenesis, these illustrate that the initial components are readily produced under appropriate conditions.

There is also some evidence to support RNA-based "life" (self-replication being the chief requirement) as a precursor to life as we understand it.

"Some evidence to support"... Please see my first post talking about the theoretical being valued over actual evidence. "Replication"? If you replicate inorganic matter you get more inorganic matter. Even with life what is replicated creates nothing new. When you replicate a sonnet on your printer do you get a math formula or even a new verse?

"Basic building blocks required for life..." yet somehow they don't create any life. Ever. "Under appropriate conditions." Really? What exactly are those "appropriate conditions". Give you data. Give you data to show how you know they are "appropriate." if they are "appropriate" and could lead to life, how come no one in any high tech lab with intelligent design has made life with those "appropriate conditions?" I mean if intelligent design and high tech manipulation can't make life, how is random chance going to do it? Explain that for me, please. Again, with data, please. Facts. What real science uses.

Do you understand that science requires actual observable, repeatable and testable data and that just claiming "appropriate conditions" doesn't demonstrate "appropriate conditions"? Do you understand the difference between faith and facts, friend?

You talk about the "primeval conditions" of earth. What actual data - not theories presented as gawd's truth facts with no data whatsoever to back them up - show you know what the so called "primeval conditions" of earth were? Present your data.

Now Miller and Urey, referenced above, thought they knew about the conditions of the early earth and then real science showed they were flat wrong about oxygen on the planet in the past, for ex. But, hey, again give me your data showing you know all about the early conditions of life in your presumed to be billions of years ago scenario. Data, now, not theories and conjectures presented as facts.

 

[LoricaLady]

You say you like real science, yet you are quick to claim proof for a negative (life never comes from non-life). Science can't prove negatives, just state that they are highly improbable.

Abiogenesis is biological life arising from the non-biological. All Christians accept abiogenesis by faith--God who is spirit (abiologic) created biological life. QED

Science also has evidence of abiogenesis. There was a time where no biological life could exist (a hydrogen only universe followed quickly by hydrogen and helium) and now we have life. Thus, abiogenesis must have occurred--we just don't know how and cannot replicate it in a laboratory. QED[/QUOTE}
"We just don't know how." Now that is one - though it is faith based - statement I can agree with. You don't know how, but you are just positive it happened. Somehow. Some way. Long ago and far away.

Before tossing terms around, friend, please research what they mean. The word "abiogenesis" refers to life coming from inorganic matter. No, when Christians say the Almighty created life they are NOT referring to Someone who is in organic matter. He IS life.

I've got the data. Life comes from life and life of the same kind every time. I've even got the LAW of biogenesis that states that. You've got faith... belief...that life came from inorganic matter. There is no ev-i-dence for that. Until you can show me life coming about through inorganic matter - and you never will because it never has happened and never will happen - sorry, but I have nothing more to say to you. Until you understand that belief in the unobservable, untestable and unrepeatable can never replace actual data that IS observable, repeatable and testable, really nothing else I have to say to you will compute with you.

 

[LoricaLady]

You say you like real science, yet you are quick to claim proof for a negative (life never comes from non-life). Science can't prove negatives, just state that they are highly improbable.

Abiogenesis is the supposed occurrence of biological life arising from the non-biological. All Christians accept abiogenesis by faith--God who is spirit (abiologic) created biological life. QED

Science also has evidence of abiogenesis. There was a time where no biological life could exist (a hydrogen only universe followed quickly by hydrogen and helium) and now we have life. Thus, abiogenesis must have occurred--we just don't know how and cannot replicate it in a laboratory. QED

"We just don't know how." There ya go. But you still have...faith... that it happened. Somehow. Some way. Leaving no evidence whatsoever.

Before tossing terms around, friend, please research what they mean. The word "abiogenesis" refers to life coming from inorganic matter. No, when Christians say the Almighty created life they are NOT referring to Someone who is inorganic matter. He IS life.

I've got the data. Life comes from life and life of the same kind every time. I've even got the LAW of biogenesis that states that. You've got faith... belief...that life came from inorganic matter. There is no ev-i-dence for that. Until you can show me life coming about through inorgnic matter - and you never will because it never has happened and never will happen - sorry, but I have nothing more to say to you. Until you understand that belief in the unobservable, untestable and unrepeatable can never replace actual data that IS observable, repeatable and testable, really nothing else I have to say to you will compute with you.

 

[Speedwell]

c You've got faith... belief...that life came from inorganic matter.

And assuming that you believe in a literal Genesis, so do you. Even human life, according to the Bible, came from inorganic matter--dust.

 

[LoricaLady]

For anyone, now here are some scientifically documented cases of life coming from the dead, from the whole person to separate body parts. And please don't say "Anecdotes." I'm just real sure that when you get a doctor's report, or see medical records, that you don't say "I can't take those seriously. They are just anecdotes!"

Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? Absolutely!
.
See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church.

. See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. The DNA in every cell of her body was changed.

.
Here is some more documented, scientific, evidence, not nearly all of it at all. See CBN's short vid Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him.

. Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead.

Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story.
.
Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth.

Skip to 1:31 to miss the book ad. . The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles.
.
On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the opthamologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. . Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who created time, space, matter, energy and you - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you.
.
Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTtDhvk_aw4
.
The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud.
.
In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals.
.
The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: There is no paint on the Shroud and they have no clue how the image got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible, what NT writers report. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology.
.
These miracles are not what many would call proof. But they are certainly evidence. In a court of law you generally rely on evidence, not proof, as the actual crime is historical and cannot usually be observed (unless there was a video cam.) . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out.
.
You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there.

 

[LoricaLady]

And assuming that you believe in a literal Genesis, so do you. Even human life, according to the Bible, came from inorganic matter--dust.

No, life did not come from the dust. Please research what you claim. The body was created by the materials of the earth. However, it had no life until the Almighty, Who IS life, breathed into it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

"Probable paths..." Theories are built on words like "probable...likely...we can infer...maybe...must have...could have...millions and billions of unobservable and unverifiable and evidenceless years ago..." Theories are just fine if they have some actual data to back them up. They are pseudo science when they not only have no such data, but ignore the data that exists.

The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. If that is not scientific fact, kindly provide data to support your contention. Again, theories are fine if they don't ignore, dismiss, and contradict the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. Therefore there is no data, no evidence, no science to support so called abiogenesis, i.e. life from inorganic matter.

Science is the honest pursuit of knowledge. "Theories are just fine if they have some actual data to back them up. They are pseudo science when they not only have no such data, but ignore the data that exists." - So, was there a time when no life existed in this Universe, and is there life in this Universe now? Also, What Data is being ignored?

The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the physical components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them and put life back into them?

And before someone talks about the Miller and Urey experiment from the 60s, uh, they didn't get any life either. However, tons of peer reviews some decades ago claimed M & U showed life could come from inorganic matter in the conveniently untestable and invisible past. "Could have come" of course falls into the theoretical again. M & U didn't get life! They got the kinds of amino acids that destroy life. They got a few amino acids. So what? I have some amino acids in my supplement bottles. They don't gather the other complex and numerous components needed for a cell. They don't organize such parts into "simple" cells - actually more complex than a block of factories, with nano machines that make other nano machines - and spring to life.

If M & U got any life, give data to support that. Don't just tell me what they "could have shown...might prove could be true...probably happened in the misty, murky, unavailable past...." etc .

Life comes from life. Life of the same kind. Every time. Period. That's what the data shows. If you prefer to believe in what has never been observed, and flat out contradicts what has been observed throughout history, that's your choice. Don't try to foist it off on me, though. I like real science, thank you.

That you choose to ignore the Science is fine, just don't pass yourself off as being rational.

Science also has evidence of abiogenesis. There was a time where no biological life could exist (a hydrogen only universe followed quickly by hydrogen and helium) and now we have life. Thus, abiogenesis must have occurred--we just don't know how and cannot replicate it in a laboratory. QED

I might add "....yet."

"Some evidence to support"... Please see my first post talking about the theoretical being valued over actual evidence. "Replication"? If you replicate inorganic matter you get more inorganic matter. Even with life what is replicated creates nothing new. When you replicate a sonnet on your printer do you get a math formula or even a new verse?

"Basic building blocks required for life..." yet somehow they don't create any life. Ever. "Under appropriate conditions." Really? What exactly are those "appropriate conditions". Give you data. Give you data to show how you know they are "appropriate." if they are "appropriate" and could lead to life, how come no one in any high tech lab with intelligent design has made life with those "appropriate conditions?" I mean if intelligent design and high tech manipulation can't make life, how is random chance going to do it? Explain that for me, please. Again, with data, please. Facts. What real science uses.

Do you understand that science requires actual observable, repeatable and testable data and that just claiming "appropriate conditions" doesn't demonstrate "appropriate conditions"? Do you understand the difference between faith and facts, friend?

You talk about the "primeval conditions" of earth. What actual data - not theories presented as gawd's truth facts with no data whatsoever to back them up - show you know what the so called "primeval conditions" of earth were? Present your data.

Now Miller and Urey, referenced above, thought they knew about the conditions of the early earth and then real science showed they were flat wrong about oxygen on the planet in the past, for ex. But, hey, again give me your data showing you know all about the early conditions of life in your presumed to be billions of years ago scenario. Data, now, not theories and conjectures presented as facts.

No, life did not come from the dust. Please research what you claim. The body was created by the materials of the earth. However, it had no life until the Almighty, Who IS life, breathed into it.

Is an Amoeba alive? Is a Bacteria alive? can we see life being breathed into anything these days? These single-celled life forms we can stop & restart just fine.

The Miller Urey experiments in confined vats have achieved in as few as 30 years pretty much all the building blocks of life - are you seriously upset that what has been achieved in those finite few decades in these buckets isn't enough to demonstrate what could happen in several hundred million years on an entire planet??

 

[LoricaLady]

Bugeyed Creepy - Miller and Urey created the wrong-handed kind of amino acids, the kinds that kill life. Even the right kind of amino acids are inorganic material with no ability whatsoever to come to life or help anything else come to life. As I already said M & U did NOT create any life whatsoever. Hello?

If you can't see, or don't care to see, what I already said, that's your choice. I don't have the time to keep repeating things. But if you can show me where life has ever come from inorganic matter, I'll be all over it. But you won't. As long as you embrace the unprovable, evidenceless, theoretical, and want to dismiss and ignore and contradict the real scientific data - even the LAW of Biogenesis which says life only comes from life and life of the same kind - nothing I have to say will mean a thing to you. Again, I don't have time to keep saying the same things over and over. Sorry. Blessings and bye. It's between you and the Almighty now.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Bugeyed Creepy - Miller and Urey created the wrong-handed kind of amino acids, the kinds that kill life. Even the right kind of amino acids are inorganic material with no ability whatsoever to come to life or help anything else come to life. As I already said M & U did NOT create any life whatsoever. Hello?

Citation please.

If you can't see, or don't care to see, what I already said, that's your choice. I don't have the time to keep repeating things. But if you can show me where life has ever come from inorganic matter, I'll be all over it. But you won't. As long as you embrace the unprovable, evidenceless, theoretical, and want to dismiss and ignore and contradict the real scientific data - even the LAW of Biogenesis which says life only comes from life and life of the same kind - nothing I have to say will mean a thing to you. Again, I don't have time to keep saying the same things over and over. Sorry. Blessings and bye. It's between you and the Almighty now.

I'm not a Scientist, nor do I play one on TV. What I do though, is tentatively accept the research & knowledge accumulated by those who are scientists. Given the amazing amount of progress we've made in science and technology because of it, why would I want to listen to someone like you, with your unsubstantiated claims that goes against this prevailing science? Not having a go, I genuinely want to hear your justifications...

 

[LoricaLady]

Bugeyed Creepy You use Miller and Urey as your defense of abiogenesis - and then you ask me to cite my sources on them? Do your own homework, friend. The data is there for anyone who wants to look for it. One thing you have not done, just as I predicted, is to show me how M & U, or anyone else, has ever seen life arise from inorganic matter. I would say I'm still waiting for that, but I'm not waiting because I know it will never happen. You see, I did my research.

"Unsubstantiated claims"? YOU are the one making unsubstantiated claims since you claim there is some evidence life comes from inorganic matter and there is zero of that. I claimed, based on observable, testable and repeatable data, that life comes from life, that Miller and Urey never got life from inorganic matter, and so on. You did nothing to present data to refute the SUBSTANTIATED claims I gave.

Now, I would not even respond to you anymore, however, in your last post it seems to me - right or wrong - that maybe you really have a heart to know what is true, even if it is outside your box. First, you are using the Appeal To Authority Logical Fallacy. That is, instead of trading data for data you show...faith...in what mainstream, orthodox, politically correct, viciously self protective Neo Darwinian academia and mainstream media are teaching about the fake news of the science world, evolutionism.

You just assume that all scientists believe in evolution. I bet you would say, as I would have said in the past, "Well! If evolution is not true, prove it and get a Nobel Prize!" Right?

Let's look at what some secular scientists have had to say that disagrees with evolutionism.
We are told that beneficial mutations are an essential mechanism for evolution to occur, but H. J. Mueller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on mutations, said....
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing -- good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." H.J. Mueller, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331.
.
Anyway, mutations are isolated, random, events that do not build on one another like Legos, and certainly have no ability to create totally new DNA as, for ex., would be needed to turn a leg into a wing.
.
As for natural selection, it does not lead to evolution, either. What does NS select from? What is already in the genome. Further, it causes a loss of information, not the new info you would need to turn a fin into, say, a foot. That is why no matter what it selects from in a fish or bird or lizard or bacteria or monkey or tree or flower you will still have a fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, etc. But if you can give data - not just theories presented as facts in the conveniently invisible past - that a Life Form A turned into Life Form B as the result of NS, do present that. Name the life forms and the evidence you have to show NS caused the transition from one type to another type.
.
Let's see what some other secular scientists have to say about evolution.
.
Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
"We cannot identify ancestors or 'missing links,' and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions."
.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Nobel Prize winner Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
.
"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do." (Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)
.
"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)
.
On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator.
These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists
.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator.

.
Now, dear, I have given you a lot of references. They are the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is out there. They can help you learn to think for yourself, to do critical thinking, to rise above faith based theories to examining real data. You can look or not. You can see or not.
It's up to you.
.
Again, my time is limited. Again, it's between you and the Father. However, I do suggest that you pray to Him to know the truth, whatever it is. Often, without the Holy Spirit, we cannot see even the obvious. That has been true for me and many, so often.
.
You probably no way believe we have an enemy called "the father of lies" and that he is "the prince" not King of kings "of this world." But we do. And he is real good at his job since the Fall.
.
Anyone reading this: You are not an ape update. You were created in the very image and likeness of the Creator. He is your Father and loves you and wants you to know Him, and love Him too. Why trade in that fantastic truth for a bunch of mumbo jumbo pseudo science that even secular scientists can't get consensus on? Rhetorical Q.

 

[Speedwell]

No, life did not come from the dust. Please research what you claim. The body was created by the materials of the earth. However, it had no life until the Almighty, Who IS life, breathed into it.

So what it comes down to is that you believe that God could create a human life from dust, but is powerless to create human life from a precursor primate. You believe that God could create the other creatures merely by saying, "Let the Earth bring forth..." but when science gets down to what exactly may have happened at the chemical level, you stall for some reason.