F0REVERB0SS:
How can proteins reproduce, and you realize the amount of failed attempts for amino acids evolving would take more than Earth's life to become stable. What are the chances that a cell will come together and have a reproduction system, ATP energy system, and a way to move them out.

DaughterOfAllah:
Are you aware that this forum has a religion section, Oladimeji247?


There's no scientific evidence to back that claim, and it doesn't even make sense the way its constructed. There are hundreds of known, potentially life-supporting planets in our galaxy alone, and the number of galaxies in the observable universe is estimated to be in the trillions. So why would we limit the viable time period of a random event to the lifespan of one planet?

On top of that, we're talking about an event that would be heavily dependent on environmental conditions, and it's not known what environmental conditions were present during the initial abiogenesis event. That alone is a good indication that the claim doesn't come from any reputable scientist. It makes claims of impossibility using information that isn't known.

Even if all of that checked out, though, the premise would only work if evolution were a linear, non-cumulative process, and that's not how evolution works, even where amino acids are concerned. Now, in fairness that part depends on which specific creationist claim your referring to here, but the complete misrepresentation of the actual principles they're claiming to describe is a feature of most of them.

These claims that evolution is so unlikely as to be impossible are tailored for people who don't understand science and are likely to settle on an idea that appeals to them rather than critically examining the facts. You do yourself and everyone else a disservice by spreading that nonsense around.

F0REVERB0SS:

First, if there were no failed evolution attempts

If the first randomly put together life form did not have the necessary parts, it could not live or reproduce

If there was no universe there was no space, there was no time, then we can not assume it had any conditions other than nothingness.

Also, 13 something billion years is the life of the universe.

F0REVERB0SS:
The chance of RNA forming even in the right conditions is low, for the basic organelles it is even lower, for it to know how to use ATP is even lower, the chance is lowered further when you consider that they have to be able to take RNA and duplicate it along with other organelles, and it is hard for RNA to become DNA.

The chances of multi-celluar beings decrease the total chance even more, and even then, why does life need consciousness?

Why does it need to reproduce?

Consciousness would be so hard to develop and it is probably outside us anyway.

There is also the possibility of gamma-rays, an asteroid or comet will hit the planet, or other cosmic disasters.

Huh How likely are those things?

What about the fermi paradox? If life evolved here it would have to be able evolve in other places, unless we need a god to create life.

Oladimeji247:
Definition of life: Anything that has DNA and reproduces/makes copies of itself

You don't need a god to explain how life came into existence. The scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis is enough for us to know that naturalistic means and process resulted in DNA coming about. All it was were gasses and lightening coming together, which over time, formed amino acids and protein, which evolved into RNA and eventually DNA.

Where is the supernatural? Where is the divine intervention? Time and time again the supernatural has been shown to just be an answer out of ignorance. "Oh I don't know, therefore God"! Yet science comes long and provides a reasonable, naturalistic explanation for what we don't know. So my theistic friends, where is your god in the origins of life, because I don't see anything supernatural. Feel free to prove me wrong!