We have created organic material from inorganic material, we have created self-replicating RNA from the conditions that are believed to be present during the formation of the Earth, and the most important piece of evidence is that life exists today... What? Creationists use that as their argument, why can't we?
The conflict is not, "Did abiogenesis occur or did it not?" The question should be "Is it more logical to assume that it did or didn't occur?" It's clear that, over time, life has become more complex, conscious, intelligent and effective. The first known organisms were single-celled, and it's logical to assume that anything before that was approximate as small/smaller, and less complex. Over the millions of years that abiogenesis must have taken (NO, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation - that's the religious argument) I think it's only logical to believe, given current evidence, that life went through many stages, and if we were able to track it backwards, we would see that the further back we went, the less biotic the creatures would be. Somewhere, there was something not quite chemical, not quite biological.
In science many different subjects and ways of life are studied. Each year we advance in ways we never thought would be possible the year before, but as we grow we learn how to keep growing. It is a very complex thing and I am sure scientists have a theory on how it would work, or does work, but I guess you could say anything is possible given enough time.
In biology, organic molecules comes from inorganic material. Our DNA is composed of a nitrogenous base and a phosphate sugar. It is also composed of other inorganic molecules such as Adenosine, Guanine, and thiamine. Creation on Earth is very complex. Everyday scientist are finding out new information. People to this day still do not believe in Darwin's evolution theory, and it has been proven by the scientific method over and over again.
According to the Big Bang Theory, all organic matter arose from inorganic life form. Human beings, when broken down in to basic components, are inorganic molecules such as carbon chains, phosphorus, oxygen, and nitrogen. Together with the interaction between chemical bonds, it creates what we constitute as organic life. Therefore, in theory, organic matter can be stemmed from inorganic matter.
Recently, methane (a gas produced by the digestive process of living matter) was found on Mars which could be evidence of biological life existing on that planet. There are also non-organic geological ways that methane could be produced, but they require a mixture of liquid water, carbon dioxide and heat - all products that require molecular attraction to take place. The mixture of water, carbon dioxide and heat also are known to create the conditions for abiogenesis to occur. Indeed, abiogenesis is the inevitable result of molecular attraction.
In my mind the question is not whether or not abiogenesis is plausible but whether or not the antithesis is rational. There is evidence suggesting abiogenesis is possible such as self-replicating RNA and organic-from-inorganic experiments. Furthermore, the term "abiogenesis" refers to the process of life coming from non-life. The antithesis is life coming from life (or most the predominantly accepted divine figure). It is irrational to believe life came from life because what one would be suggesting is that life has always existed on Earth, so the only other option is a deity. So we have two options, life from non-life with insignificant evidence as of now, or the invisible person(s) in the sky with no validating information.
However, the convergence of data from almost every discipline of science supports descent from a common ancestor for all life. A single common ancestor. The fossil records reveal the oldest forms of life being single celled organisms from close to 3.5 billion years ago. Slowly, very slowly, these records reveal increasing complexity as time progresses. Single cell to multi cell organisms and then more and more complex life forms. The second law of thermo is simply not in play when life is studied, as it is differentiated in that it is self organizing and replicating, increasing in complexity with time. It must have been the same for initial life, which began with chemical and inorganic interactions to show this ability of self organization. These self organizing events can be recreated in the lab with chemical and inorganic materials, though of course we have never been able to duplicate whatever conditions must have been in play to form life. Maybe an outside agent or mechanism is involved initially or required, maybe not, but it still appears from everything we observe that all life came from an original single celled life form, which was constituted from the very elements we are made of today. So however it occurred, it seems likely that it did, so abiogenesis is more than possible, it is probable.
The more I learn the more I realize that anything is possible. Now just because it is possible doesn't make it probable. It is just a tool we use to explain life, something tangible. God is also a possibility. There are many possibilities, some we know and I'm sure many that we don't. Even if this were provable, it would still not be evidence against the concept of God.
We can be very sure that it is possible. The creonists are klinging to "The God of the gaps", but as science discover more and more the gap is almost dissapering, and it is silly to assume that we wont discover more in the future.. And we wil undoubtly be able to create life in future.
The argument here is that spontaneous creation is possible, something proved to be proved wrong in the 17th century. This idea is based on a philosophy from Aristotle, a man with no proof or documenting evidence. He just made a claim to explain something he couldn't understand, much like the Greeks invented their own Gods to explain things they couldn't understand, such as the sun rising. As time progresses, new knowledge is presented to push away old knowledge. Religion is strictly a comforting thought explaining the divine, an unexplainable force. It is ludicrous to say that a God simply created itself. Case closed.
Abiogenesis is illogical.It has never been observed to happen. It contradicts all observation. It contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. The odds of it happening are so astronomical to be impossible....No! If you have enough time things will deteriorate. Never become more ordered and complex. A single living cell is extremely complex. Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." The impossibility of the "slight modification" of non-living matter to living cell is sufficient to break down Darwin's theory. No Abiogenesis is impossible!
Abiogenesis is an argument that begs not only one question, but multiple ones. Not only that, but it also breaks a known law, the law of biogenesis. So say we have a simple molecule. Ok, great we have a fully functioning cell with the ability to replicate itself. Hmm...Where did the cell come from? How did it learn to organize itself in that way? Can mutations alone drive the process (we have never seen mutations create new information, only modify an organisms cosmetically or negatively) One can muse to themselves endlessly about how the building blocks for life may have coalesced billions of years ago, and science can keep pursuing those dreams as well. However consider this; do we know that science can explain all things? I would posit that 99.9% of people would agree that science cannot explain love (of any kind), consciousness, envy, evil, goodness, what happens when we die, why biological systems do what they do (not how they function, but what is the driving force), lack of evidence of transitional forms, complex structures like the eye, and how all of the 20 interlocking systems of the body came to be.
If we know that science cannot explain everything, why do we treat it like it does? Science has filled the proper slot of religious belief in God, and has become a pseudoscientific religion, with its doctrine being "Anything in time possible, and with time all will be known."
Abiogenesis is no more a scientific theory than the theory of "I think lemons sprout from the backs of elephants!"
Both ideas are preposterous, unproven, illogical, far fetched, impossible, vague, and stupid.
Ask yourself- do you believe in abiogenesis because you think it is logical, or because you simply reject the idea of a creator? Well, God seems to think he made everything pretty plain.
Romans 1:20 says
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Abiogenesis is impossible. However, in accordance with the biological law of biogenesis, life can come from life. Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Believe on him and be saved!
In order for an organism to live and reproduce, it needs several systems, functioning without error, and most importantly, it needs food. These systems are very complex, and the more we learn about them the deeper the intelligence becomes astounding. Were we put amino acids into a vat, life would not be created. Were we to push them together, pressurize them, electrocute them, we could do anything to that vat and the amino acids already premade, would not combine into a living organism with over hundreds of millions of parts.
We are, of course, made from the earth. Abiogenesis, life coming from inorganic material unguided, is preposterous. It's like throwing a box of Lincoln logs into a washing machine expecting to make a furnished cabin. Preposterous at best.
Abiogenesis is stating that amino acids or some other building block would absolutely have to come from some sort of thing that happens. Abiogenesis not working doesn't mean that there is only one alternative to life being started. If life were to have started from amino acids being generated, where were the smaller parts of the cell to metabolize energy? How did energy start to be metabolized without smaller creations? The idea proposes that life would just have to spring up just as fast as it would through any creationist methods as amino acids cannot just start life itself. They are the building blocks of life, of course. But for legos to be built someone has to put them together. Current theory does not point to the current understanding of abiogenesis being valid. It also does not point to a creationist viewpoint. The only thing left here is to say I don't know.
The more knowledge we acquire, the more we need to determine our origin; almost as though we are creating more pieces rather than solving the puzzle. We are divinely encouraged to look but prohibited from seeing. Man will continue to search but will never know what the Grand Designer knows.
The very nature of this universe, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, suggests that biological systems can only arise from ordered structures. The self-organisation which defines biology would not be possible without pre-existing ordered structures organised in such a way to allow self-replication via the action of co-molecules such as proteins. It is simply asking the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg? One cannot exist without the other. It is the same case for the origins of life.