for DNA to exist, there must have been phosphate, sugar, and nitrogenous bases (adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine) all carefully aligned with all the replicating enzymes (helicase, SSB, primase, polymerase, Rnase H, and liase) pre-existing for such a cell to "live". such pre-requisites are absolutely impossible to arise by chance given the requirements for the enzymes themselves. they don’t just float around the ocean occupying every space avalible.

i study biology at school and despite all the "evidence" for the origins of evolution, it is indeed impossible for every pre-requisite to "magically appear", readily aligned to synthesise a fully functional DNA strand comprised of many, many nucleotides.

tawaen: if you’d take blind chance over "God Did It", then that sounds like obstinacy to me. quite contrary to the stereotype put on atheists isn’t it?

unless atheists have studied anything remotely similar to biological science, then they are obviously incapable of explaining the foundations of evolution itself.

edit: of course, thumbs-down! i should have expected these since there are people who’d rather base their arguments on "pseudo-logic" over FACT aren’t that bright…

given that the evolution does NOT explain the origins of life, I say it would be better if an alternative theory was proposed than to cling onto something that still retains a giant flaw since conception.

I like it when the zany people try to tackle topics.

Well seeing we have had 58 years (Your words) to try and find the beginning of life and you believers have had oooh let’s say 3,000 years to get any proof of God. And we’re both at the same level (in fact we’re ahead but whatever) then no it would be stupid to say GOD DID IT

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific explanation of that fact.

Evolutionary theory is an explanation of how life developed, not how it began.

The rest of your post is an argument from personal incredulity – a logical fallacy. You assert "atheists" must explain abiogenesis or else believe in God because that’s your personal stance.

It’s not mine.

"I don’t know" is my explanation for why there’s a Universe, and for how life got started here on Earth. I’m comfortable with that, you aren’t. So you wedge a god into your ignorance.

Edit: So now you’re shifting to the Teleological Argument? The Universe (in your opinion) looks designed, and therefore (in your opinion) must be designed.

BZZT! Sorry, wrong.

Unless you can show how the Universe that exists cannot have come about naturalistically, you have no case, "It’s pretty" is not an argument.

The point is, life did not always exist on earth, but now it does. Therefore it began at some point. How it began has no bearing on evolution whatsoever, since evolution is simply ongoing change in already living organisms. Biologists, including Christian ones like myself, recognize this. Evolution is not about the origins of life, just what happened consequently.

And, we are still waiting for the anti-evolution crowd to propose an alternative theory that addresses the known FACT that new species have replaced earlier species ever since life appeared on earth. If it didn’t happen through biological evolution as all the evidence indicates, then please suggest another mechanism by which it might have occurred.

Here’s a link for you, spend some time on it, you’ll find it worth your while….
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

I think you’ll find this quote noteworthy too….
Francis Collins, an evangelical christian, the eminent geneticist, and director of the national human genome research institute, says:

"Nearly all working biologists accept that the principles of variation and natural selection explain how multiple species evolved from a common ancestor over very long periods of time. I find no compelling examples that this process is insufficient to explain the rich variety of life forms present on this planet. While no one could claim yet to have ferreted out every detail of how evolution works, I do not see any significant "gaps" in the progressive development of life’s complex structures that would require divine intervention. In any case, efforts to insert God into the gaps of contemporary human understanding of nature have not fared well in the past, and we should be careful not to do that now."

So how did you get your God, then? God must have been formed by abiogenesis.

It’s a lot less far-fetched that somewhere in this vast universe, a few of the simplest self-replicating molecules formed spontaneously and survived, than that something as complex as a deity formed spontaneously and then went on to create simpler life-forms.

All that has really been shown by experiment is that the techniques used up to now have been insufficient to recreate what might have been happening on Earth billions of years ago.

Yes, we ARE willing to admit that we don’t know certain things.

That’s the difference between us and you. We can admit when we don’t know something. You can’t so you MAKE UP an explanation… "Goddidit", and then tell everyone else that what you made up is true. Then you even go so far as to tell people that they are going to be punished in a pit of fire for all eternity for not believing what you had just MADE UP.

At least we’re *trying* to find out the real answers to life’s questions. If it weren’t for people who weren’t satisfied settling for a made up explanation for things, "Goddidit", "Godwillsit", etc., we’d all still be living in clay huts and dying at the ripe old age of forty.

It is intellectually dishonest to say that because you don’t know or understand something, that a magical being "must have" been responsible. That’s how primitive people thought.