Ceridwen018
Well-Known Member
In the spirit of getting this debate back on topic...
This is quite true, and quite disturbing. What abiogenesis means, is that organic materials can form from inorganic materials, aka, amino acids (the building blocks of protein) can spring from rocks. Sounds pretty improbable, right? Wrong! Scientists have been playing around with abiogenesis in their labs since the 50's. The Miller-Urey experiment, for instance was the first to accomplish their goal. They created an environment to simulate what the environment of our newborn earth would be like (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Heat, and Lighting, namely). They just let the closed environment run, and came back to find that these simple ingredients had produced amino acids, and other organic compounds as well.
Throw a couple billion years onto that, and it doesn't seem so improbable after all!
The Miller/Urey Experiment
Orthodox said:Creationists like to imply that the "odds" are so steep against abiogenesis that the only reasonable explanation for life's beginnings is an intelligent designer.
This is quite true, and quite disturbing. What abiogenesis means, is that organic materials can form from inorganic materials, aka, amino acids (the building blocks of protein) can spring from rocks. Sounds pretty improbable, right? Wrong! Scientists have been playing around with abiogenesis in their labs since the 50's. The Miller-Urey experiment, for instance was the first to accomplish their goal. They created an environment to simulate what the environment of our newborn earth would be like (Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Heat, and Lighting, namely). They just let the closed environment run, and came back to find that these simple ingredients had produced amino acids, and other organic compounds as well.
Throw a couple billion years onto that, and it doesn't seem so improbable after all!
The Miller/Urey Experiment