Origin of Life


Alas as we have been putting these sections in I have run out of time and so will have to lay these notes and arguments, paragraphs and evidence out better. I have a lot of additional notes, writings and such as well but I am running out of time for now. I promise I will get back to this section and evolution as soon as possible.


“Despite the widespread view that Darwinian Evolution has been able to explain the emergence of biological complexity that is not the case…Darwinian theory does not deal with the question how [life] was able to come into being. The troublesome question still in search of an answer is: How did a system capable of evolving come about in the first place?…Nature just doesn’t operate like that! Nature doesn’t spontaneously make highly organized…purposeful entities…And here precisely lies the [origin of] life problem…it is not just common sense that tells us that highly organized entities don’t just spontaneously come about. Certain basic laws of physics [coupled with mathematical probability] preach the same sermon – systems tend toward chaos and disorder, not toward order and function… Biology [i.e. a naturalistic origin of life] and physics seem contradictory, quite incompatible”

– What is Life: How Chemistry Becomes Biology, Oxford University Press, 2012 – Dr. Addy Pross, professor of chemistry, Ben-Gurion University, Israel.


Despite the enormous amount of energy/money/time/talent that has been expended on trying to solve the mystery of first life it is more ellusive now then it was hundreds of years ago. Nothing has changed except that now we know the problem is far worse then anyone could have immagined. Far from getting close science races away from the solution at the speed of light. The problem now is fantastically impossible that is though the problem laughs in the face of those that try and answer it … that is without a God. Put God into the mix and everything lines up pretty well.


Astrobiologist Professor Paul Davies said,

“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”10

Anthony flew believed after a life of atheism that the evidence:

“has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved”.


From Conservapedia:

In 1996, John Horgan wrote in Scientific American: "The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." [6] Even Stanley Miller of the famous Miller-Urey experiment, wrote in Scientific American that the "problem of the origin of life has turned out to be much more difficult than I, and most other people, envisioned.[5] Horgan also wrote that Stanley Miller had referred to current proposals of the origin of life as "nonsense" and "paper chemistry".[1]

Stanley Miller, however, wasn't the first to highly disparage the existing proposals that scientists had come up with for the origin of life though natural means. Chemist and science writer Andrew Scott in 1988 said that "[d]ue to this scarcity of financial resources the study of the origins of life has been forced to become a most efficient and cost-effective industry from just a thimble-full of facts the scientists engaged in that study manage to generate a virtually endless supply of theories!"[7]

Some Specific Problems for Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of Life

Chicken or the Egg problem regarding DNA and proteins: John Horgan wrote: "Many investigators now consider nucleic acids to be much more plausible candidates for the first self-replicating molecules. The work of Watson and Crick and others has shown that proteins are formed according to the instructions coded in DNA. But there is a hitch. DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins. To those pondering the origin of life, it is a classic chicken-and-egg problem: Which came first, proteins or DNA?" - (John Horgan,[science writer], "In The Beginning...," Scientific American, Vol. 264, No. 2, February 1991, pp. 100–109, p. 103)"[6]

  1. Complexity of the cell: Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote regarding the complexity of the cell: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which-a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"[8]

  2. Catch 22 problem regarding oxygen and the early earth: Mike Riddle cites the "catch 22" dilemma regarding oxygen on the early earth in regards to a hypothesized naturalistic origin of life: "If we were to grant the evolutionists’ assumption of no oxygen in the original atmosphere, another fatal problem arises. Since the ozone is made of oxygen, it would not exist; and the ultraviolet rays from the sun would destroy any biological molecules. This presents a no-win situation for the evolution model. If there was oxygen, life could not start. If there was no oxygen, life could not start. Michael Denton notes: What we have is sort of a “Catch 22” situation. If we have oxygen we have no organic compounds, but if we don’t have oxygen we have none either."[9]

  3. Implausibility of the RNA World hypothesis.[10][11][12]

  4. Chirality problem[13]

  5. Polymerization problem [14]



Let me add several additional problems:

6. We have never seen a rock give rise to life.

7. Where did the information and the information processing hardware come from?

8. Consciousness is increasingly being found to be fundamental to the universe and yet we have only seen consciousness give rise to consciousness. So how do you get first life without consciousness in the universe?




I’m sure there are more problems we will all discover together. My prediction is that the problem will get more complex … the solution more distant. And yet this is what one scientific publication printed on the matter:


The original Quanta Magazine article quoted England as saying the following: “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.”


Remember that a plant is an amazingly complex alien technology. Far more efficient then human technology. Then maybe if we shine a light long enough out will pop a Campbell soup factory. That would actually be less of a stretch.


The best article I have ever seen on either side of the debate would be this one:



Here is a much more detailed and comprehensive article



That is as detailed and slam dunk as it gets on both amazing articles. Good luck refuting that. You would have better luck going one on one in a game of basketball with Kobe Bryant.


That is detail that is science that made sense … now lets compare a couple of quotes shall we from the atheist side:


Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas.  Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere.  Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together.  And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal].  Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas.  These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world.  They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).


Notice how they talk as if its all been figured out and proven. None of that has been proven. If anything none of that even seems likely even down to the supposed “primordial sea”. And from molecules to the first cell???? Are you kidding do you know whats involved. (see https://brucemp.com/2016/10/22/abiogenesis/ ) Hold on We will get to some more of that in a moment. But first lets do some more nuttiness shall we? Lets go with the Messiah of Atheism himself:


...no life, no biology, only physics and chemistry, and the details of the Earth’s chemistry were very different.  Most, though not all, of the informed speculation begins in what has been called the primeval soup, a weak broth of simple organic chemicals in the sea.  Nobody knows how it happened but, somehow, without violating the laws of physics and chemistry, a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying—a replicator.  This may seem like a big stroke of luck... Freakish or not, this kind of luck does happen... [and] it had to happen only once... What is more, as far as we know, it may have happened on only one planet out of a billion billion planets in the universe.  Of course many people think that it actually happened on lots and lots of planets, but we only have evidence that it happened on one planet, after a lapse of half a billion to a billion years.  So the sort of lucky event we are looking at could be so wildly improbable that the chances of its happening, somewhere in the universe, could be as low as one in a billion billion billion in any one year.  If it did happen on only one planet, anywhere in the universe, that planet has to be our planet—because here we are talking about it (Dawkins, 1996, pp. 282–283, emphasis in original).


Ok what is he smoking? His argument is that because we are here and He doesn’t believe in God then its proof that it happened without a God. Ok well the other side … those that believe in God sometimes make the same case. The difference is that if we take the word “God” and our emotions out of the equation then we look at it from a perspective of Design and Intelligence. Whatever your baggage on “God” is should be tossed out … so that we can just see if a “Non-Intelligent” “Non-Designed” solution is the best or even possible explanation. Or could it be that we are left with only one possible solution whether we like it or not:


The following came from this article: https://www.trueorigin.org/abio.php

As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261.  Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold.  Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^119,831 years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114).  The number he obtained is 10^119,831 greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years).  In other words, this event is outside the range of probability.  Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit.

In spite of the overwhelming empirical and probabilistic evidence that life could not originate by natural processes, evolutionists possess an unwavering belief that some day they will have an answer to how life could spontaneously generate.  Nobel laureate Christian de Duve (1995) argues that life is the product of law-driven chemical steps, each one of which must have been highly probable in the right circumstances.  This reliance upon an unknown “law” favoring life has been postulated to replace the view that life’s origin was a freakish accident unlikely to occur anywhere, is now popular.  Chance is now out of favor in part because it has become clear that even the simplest conceivable life form (still much simpler than any actual organism) would have to be so complex that accidental self-assembly would be nothing short of miraculous even in two billion years (Spetner, 1997).  Furthermore, natural selection cannot operate until biological reproducing units exist.  This hoped for “law,” though, has no basis in fact nor does it even have a theoretical basis.  It is a nebulous concept which results from a determination to continue the quest for a naturalistic explanation of life.

[End excerpt]

The atheist side is full of miracles and circular reasoning. Talk about God-Of-The-Gaps its a Black-Hole Gap. They then prance around talking as if its all been settled or my personal fav: We will figure it out. Ja had 150 years bro. How many more centuries do you need? Your not getting closer. If this is a game its time for your team to stay in the locker room on one of the breaks.

Science is showing it was never on the side of atheism. The deeper we look the more we find:

1. Intelligence is necessary from the bottom up for everything we see.

2. Consciousness is necessary for function of the universe.

3. Life is the only thing with the processing power to produce life.

4. All of the probabilistic resources of the universe could not create life without an OIA (Outside Intelligent Agent).

5. OOL (Origin of Life) shows the problem of getting life without an OIA gets more difficult the more we know.


Its easy at this point to make an Intelligent Design prediction:

Science will never find a solution to how first life originated with an Intelligent Designer!

Because its not possible.

(one of the top 5 reasons I am no longer an atheist)