Evolutionists... If abiogenesis is false then where did the living matter come from?

Anyone who has taken part in the deliberate creation of anything structural, mechanical, electronic, etc. knows that the possibility of life by chance is so remote as to be absurd. Those that believe it, are only compliant by reason of the reverse of faith-that being- there could not be a creator, so life must have happened by chance.

It is the biggest fallacy ever since Pascal's Wager.

Totally pathetic to the thinking human.

if you are talking about baking a cake, you are probably not talking about going to the store with your shopping list and assembling the ingredients for a cake. So if you talk to friends about how you spent your time baking a cake, they would be surprised to hear that what you really did was going to the store for shopping.

Its a bit the same with talking about abiogenesis and evolution. It's not the same process. It's a language thing. Language is tricky enough, if we don't all use a pretty similar definition of what a word means communication gets even more complicated as it already is.

That's all what it means if somebody tells you that evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution is the change of living things into living things with different/new properties. Abiogenesis is the process of life arising from chemical substances. There is currently no agreed theory for abiogenesis, though at the moment ribozymes which can catalyse their own synthesis are regarded as a likely intermediate form. Nobody claims that life came into existence suddenly. Energy from the sun or geological processes were probably outside influences.

See, scientists have real problems with thinking life springing into existence suddenly (and also no evidence whatsoever that it did). So the literal story of the bible doesn't make any sense to them (given that we know whales are mammals whose ancestors were land dwelling, it is very surprising to hear that god created whales with the fish and before all other land mammals)

In Science, Evolution refers to a change in the inherited traits of a population of living organisms from generation to generation (up through species to species). Thus you can see, it only refers to situations where life already exists. It says nothing about the origin of life. It is vigorous, extremely well supported, solid science.

Abiogenesis, in contrast, as the word implies, refers to the origin of the first life. It is a speculative science in its infancy, although some very plausible hypotheses exist given what we know about conditions back then and chemistry, starting with simple self-replicating chemical compounds.

You can believe that it makes more sense that God started life. I personally wouldn't agree, and I definately don't agree with your characterisation of abiogenesis (is a simple replicating chemical life? where is the cut-off point?), but I'm really not that fussed because abiogenesis is a fairly open question.

What I do find annoying is creationists attempting to discredit evolution by tacking on abiogenesis. It comes across as dishonest to say the least.

Abiogenesis and evolution are two distinctly different scientific disciplines. If you wish to understand abiogenesis, even if your goal is to disprove it, the starting place is the Miller-Urey experiment, first performed in 1953. It's been repeated many times, with various modifications, and is the foundation of abiogenesis theory. It is important to understand that amino acids are the building blocks of proteins, and that proteins are the building blocks of life. First things first: study the Miller-Urey experiment. A suitable second step would be to find a copy of the June, 2007 Scientific American Magazine. The RNA theory you'll find there is the latest great idea in the field.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life.

It is believed to have happened sometime between 4.4 billion years ago, when water vapor first liquefied, and 2.7 billion years ago, when the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon (12C and 13C ), iron and sulfur points to a biogenic origin of minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis. This topic also includes panspermia and other exogenic theories regarding possible extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial origins of life, thought to have possibly occurred sometime over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the Universe since the Big Bang.

Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. Several theories have been proposed, most notably RNA world hypothesis.

Now note that this area is still in research. Just because there are some things that we are not certain of yet, doesn't make it an argument that God created everything. We WILL find out! We WILL fill out the holes which you use as arguments.

Awww, someone doesn't understand molecular biology. :3 No seriously, looking at organic matter as simply "mud" is about is helpful in this situation as claiming a deity made it. You have to look at it on the micro level - at nucleotides and lipids specifically. Understanding that organic compounds form spontaneously in certain environments and that it's possible for them to interact in a way that allows self-replication is the first step in understanding something like abiogenesis. Simply writing something off as 'fantasy' (ironically) without even looking into the details is really not the way that you learn about things.

Abiogenesis is not considered evolution, but more along the lines of biochemistry. Evolution talks about the diversification of life, but starting with the first life. It's a different topic.

That doesn't mean abiogenesis is false. There isn't enough information to conclude how it happened.

You also have to get out of your head that ideas of things 'suddenly happening'. Over billions of years is not suddenly happening. that idea is creationist propaganda.

Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life or matter. Evolution is merely a description of a process by which life continues through great and small changes on this planet.

You want to ask a microbiologist.

Study evolution a little more in-depth, you might find that there's room for God and your beliefs within the theory.

Which version of abiogenesis? If all possible mechanisms of life arising by naturalistic means are disproven, that would be strong evidence for special creation. Since what you call "suddenly springing" took hundreds of millions of years, you do misunderstand.

There is no such thing as "evolutionists". Do you "believe in" gravity? Are you a gravitationist?

Yes, you misunderstood.

Evolution is not abiogenesis - abiogenesis is the origin, evolution is the progress since that.

abiogenesis is very unlikely - but it only had to happen ONCE in hundreds of millions of years on the entire planet.

I can assure you it makes perfect sense if you actually study it.

Evolution and Abiogensis are two different scientific fields.

Like Paleontology and Archeology.

I believe your confusion comes from the way you are visualizing the "bridge" between living and non-living material. When you think of living you think of humans, dogs, cats, etc. When you think of non-living you are thinking of rocks.

This is grossly incorrect. Rocks, sand, viruses, mice, and humans are composed of chemicals. Different chemical combinations result in different reactions.

Living matter is simply a chemical (or molecule) that is capable of replication, metabolism, and mutation.

Granted the molecule is very, very complex but if you look at it from this point of view it is really no different than any "non-living" material.