When considering how life began, there are only two options. Either life was created by an intelligent source (God) or it began by natural processes.
No mechanism by which non-living matter can randomly spark itself into life has ever been demonstrated. Information must come from a source of information.
To creationists, the incredible workings of the genetic code are not a mystery to be explained but instead a marvel to be understood as one of God’s most incredible designs. How such a coding system (even in a simpler form) could have arisen through random interaction is yet another leap of faith by evolutionists.
By assuming organic compounds ejected by stars could have fortified the primordial solar system, asteroids and meteorites, and of course earth with the building blocks of life, evolutionary scientists see such findings as a source to seed the process of molecules-to-man evolution.
Was life seeded on earth by intelligent alien beings from another planet?
In a quiet pond somewhere on early earth, the many complex chemicals necessary for life came together to produce the first living cell—or did they?
Is it possible for scientists to defy the law of biogenesis and create life in a laboratory or test tube?
What mysterious quality makes a creature alive at one moment but is absent the instant the creature dies? The Bible answers the question, “What is life?”
Rice University professor Dr. James Tour correctly says life from non-life is “highly improbable” but doesn’t point back to the final arbiter of truth, God’s Word.
Study suggests “chemical big bang” where life arose suddenly, kickstarting early evolutionary developments though it defies a scientific or biblical explanation.
If all the ingredients necessary for life can occur naturally, does that mean over time they can evolve into a living creature?
It is evident from both Scripture and observational science that abiogenesis is a myth, Genesis is real history, and God is the true life.
The origin of life is a complicated biological problem for those who deny God’s existence. It is such an issue that many naturalists refuse even to discuss it.
Why do so many intelligent people find the idea of molecules-to-man evolution compelling, while others consider it outrageously improbable?
Evolutionists speculate that life gradually evolved from mere hydrogen in a series of stages.
Biophysicists, observing the fascinating properties of liquid droplets, propose that liquid droplet physics could explain how life began.
The microbe LUCA is supposed to have been the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all living things.
The recent report of a 1.5-billion-year-old fossil1 has brought attention once again to the alleged evolution of multicellular systems.
All questions on the origin of life hinge on our understanding of genetics because the first cell couldn’t just form and then die.
Evolutionists hope the first chiral molecule discovered in interstellar space will shed light on the mystery of how life evolved its biochemical handedness.
Analysis of newly discovered deep-sea species led evolutionists to say that Xenoturbella, resembling a discarded purple sock, can help us understand evolution.
If a computer simulation can trace a path for the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled ones, does that mean they actually evolved that way?
Does the “world’s oldest sponge” confirm evolutionary beginnings of multicellular animal life at least 600 million years ago?
Swedish meteorite said to have triggered mass destruction and opened the way for life’s post-Cambrian explosion.
“Flower of the sea” is said to contain an evolutionary link between plants and animals.
Trace elements tell a tale of critically low oxygen that nearly turned out the lights on the evolution of complex life.
Researchers calculate that life had to have begun so long ago earth did not yet exist.
From these discussions it should again become clear that all efforts to explain an origin of information depending on matter alone fail empirically.
Strelley Pool stromatolites strike another blow for early life.
The good of the one outweighs the good of the few and the many—the single-cell bottleneck that unleashes multicellular evolutionary potential(?)
Whether it’s mica sheets or meteorites (or both), evolutionists have come up with theory after theory—most untestable, all unproven—about how life on earth got started. Here’s the latest.
The “chirality problem” isn’t exactly one of the most prominent topics of debate when it comes to origins. But that doesn’t mean evolutionists have forgotten the problem it poses for an “accidental” origin of life.
The evolution of the genetic code remains one of the most speculative, mysterious vignettes in the grand tale of evolution. On that subject, have evolutionary researchers made headway, or do they just reinforce the creationist’s perspective?
LUCA: I am your father?
Maybe it was primordial soup. Maybe it was crystals. Maybe it was volcanic pools. Maybe it was lumps of ice. Maybe . . . .
The search for evidence for abiogenesis has uncovered a new “candidate”: DNA in liquid crystal phases that “self-orients” and stacks into columns.