What is the 100% rock solid proof that shows that life randomly came into existence instead of a creator?

there is none ... both are equally as likely scientifically speaking ... but who can crack open a watermelon and not see it was designed just for you to eat ...

1) This is a better question suited for the science section.

2) No scientist is proposing that life "randomly came into existence". That makes your 10^60 number meaningless.

3) Science does not try to prove things with 100% certainty. The only time you find proof with 100% certainty is in mathematics, and that's only because you're working with abstract definitions of objects and their properties that are idealized. But in the real world, as long as the human mind can imagine some other situation, then there's always room for uncertainty.

This still doesn't mean that every hypothesis is equally likely. That's not how the scientific method works. To use another analogy, police aren't at the scene of every crime, yet they're still able to catch and rightfully convict criminals by examining the evidence. They can't prove with 100% ccertainty that my grandfather was NOT the Boston strangler, but you'd have to be an idiot to convict him based on the evidence. Even if Albert Desalvo wasn't convicted (which he was), that still wouldn't prove my grandfather did it.

4) The "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics" is such an embarrassingly fallacious argument that I can't believe creationists still use it. I have one word for you: snowflakes.

If actually thought "a big invisible man did it" has equal probability with what science has to say about abiogenesis, and had any brains, you wouldn't be posting to a measley internet forum. You'd be publishing a paper for a science journal.

"Miller and Oparin's experiment of lightening in a mixture of gases to form chemical generation of life was disproved because the early Eath did not contain those gases."

well this is wrong in a couple of different ways. firstly, miller showed that amino acids can be formed in conditions he thought were something like the early earth. quite a different thing to 'chemical generation of life'. it's possible to use other conditions but still no one says it is 'chemical generation of life'. it seems like you're deliberately misunderstanding the conclusions that people have drawn from this work in order to dismiss the whole thing.

"The long time line theory doesn't work because if the earth is only 5 billion years old like scientists think that it is then that is not enough time to get better odds than 1 chance in 10 to the 60th power. That number is so high as to not even be feasible."

garbage in, garbage out. we don't know how life formed. assigning a probability in the abscence of any plausible scenario is just silly. no one seriously believes in the 'tornado in a junk yard' scenario so you are attacking a straw man there.

"Laws of thermodynamics claim that left alone systems will develop more chaos as opposed to more order so how can leaving alone a bunch of chemicals lead to the creation of a more complex system that is a living thing."

there's an important part of the laws of thermodynamics that you left out. they apply to closed systems, that is systems where no energy or matter is allowed to enter or leave the system. the earth as a whole is not a closed system. living organisms are not closed systems.

in any case, your interpretation forbids organisms from growing and reproducing just as much as it forbids them from forming spontaneously - your interpretation is wrong. if you really want to understand thermodynamics, you can't interpret it as if it was scripture or something, you have to look at it mathematically.

see here for instance: http://www.2ndlaw.com/

now you want "100% rock solid proof that shows that life randomly came into existence instead of a creator". of course there is no such thing, you're right about that. but tell me, how could we demonstrate that anything came into existence by creation? supposedly, everything is created. how then could we say that this thing was created, but that thing was not? the hypothesis that life formed by natural mechanisms is at least testable - not to say that it's easy to test, of course. it is hard to find clues about a process that would have happened so long ago. that doesn't stop some scientists from trying to figure it out, though.

"6.The long time line theory says that given an infinite amount of time life will come from nothing."

there is no such theory. you or the professional apologists for bronze-age myths that you have read have made up this theory from misunderstandings (deliberate or otherwise) of actual scientific ideas and theories.

"In 1980 NASA found that the early atmosphere was composed of mostly water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen and you can not get any reaction using the same expirement."

not using the same conditions. but change the conditions a little...

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleI...

That is a double edged question, since what is the 100% rock solid proof that shows that life came into existance due to a creator? There is none, but certainly more evidence showing that it was not created by some magical being in the sky, or some flying spaghetti monster. There certainly is evidence to show that beings evolve, see bacteria or viruses that become resistant to different things and grow and thrive. But to you, that must be just the work of some God, or magical unicorn, or something like that.

Faith isn't even a theory or a law. There is no proof whatsoever in creationism. It's all made up. Science, at least, has some basis. It doesn't have to be 100% proven, because proof takes time, but it will be. There is already more proof in science than there ever will be with faith.

atheist

Thermodynamics:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.htm...

Miller Urey: The part that says Wells boils off.

http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon1millerurey.h...

No clue what you speak of with the long timeline theory. The only thing I could find referenced Legend of Zelda. However, the other part is easily refuted by this statement: "But you have heard of me" Just because it has a billion in one chance doesn't mean it won't happen eventually.

So go read a science book since you skipped those pages.

You haven't read science books. You've read creationist propaganda. You don't even understand what the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, and you certainly don't understand probability.

But no, there is not 100% rock solid proof that life "randomly" came into existence. But I think there is better than 99% chance that you don't understand the role that "random" chance plays in evolution.

So many untruths... maybe we should start with the second law of thermodynamics. Do you know exactly what it says? Why do you think it applies?

Science does not deal with the supernatural, and so cannot disprove the existence of gods.

Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant fields accept evolution. There is no competing scientific theory. Those "scientists" you speak of are actually anti-scientists.

We all see the world the way we want to.

In the scientific community, there is no longer any argument regarding evolution. It is completely and totally unequivocal- supported by 150 years of scientific methods, millions of pieces of evidence, peer reviewed studies, from a dozen different branches of science.

to say that you personally know of nothing that is not in disupute, says that you know very little about what is known and the evidence that supports it. And- given your apparent bias... you never will.

Even the Pope no longer takes issue with evolution.

I can only tell you that The god of the Abrahamic religions is represented in such an utterly ridiculous way that I find it very strange that so many people buy into the dogmas of these religions. You just need to use common sense and decency to reach a conclusion on your own.

No one will ever be able to say 100 percent, because nobody will ever know for sure. We weren't there. But I'd rather believe in sciences than to believe that man was created from mud by some supernatural being.