Anti-Creationists, how do you suppose life came about on Earth?

It wasn't suddenly and all those structures did not come about simultaneously.

Google "RNA world" then watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

...but abiogenesis doesn't hold that the first life came into being complete with membranes and organelles. All that's necessary at first is RNA, and it's been shown that the primordial ocean could have had the necessary nucleic acids. RNA will self-replicate if you let it - the polymerases and other enzymes that cells use simply speed up the process and increase fidelity. Lipids self-assemble into micelles in water. RNA can have enzymatic properties. The primordial ocean is known to have been chock full of chemicals - i.e. energy for early life to use (they didn't need alternative sources until those initial resources began to be depleted). Clearly, everything didn't need to arise at the same time - and it's never been claimed that it did.

Your argument is one from ignorance, a classical logical fallacy. We're not sure exactly how life came about... but that's not by any means evidence *for* it happening in 6 days by the direct hand of the Abrahamic God. Remember, 200 years ago, we didn't know the mechanism behind diseases. 300 years ago, we didn't know what made lightning. Millennia ago, we didn't understand the movement of the heavens.

You're right that people need to understand that science has to be evidence based. But people also need to realize that it's *not* OK to omit parts of that evidence (and promote their own ignorance as positive evidence) in order to satisfy their own preconceived beliefs (and, yes, I'm referring to you).

"Suddenly"; nonsense. We have several hundred million years between the earth cooling sufficiently, and the oldest evidence of life.

The origins of life is an incompletely answered question (good! So much out there still to learn!); you will find, if you want to (which I doubt) a sample of current thinking at Wikipedia "Origins of life"

And for what it's worth, the majority scientific view is that the first organisms were chemotrophs. Photosynthesis came later.

No they didnt have to happen all at the same time. The first step was when a random occurence lead to the first self replicating molecule being produced through a reaction scientists have reproduced in the lab already

Life was inevitable; all of these smaller things, like amino acids, are simply chemical compounds that arose due to the environment they were in.

No, none of this happened "simultaneously". Things arose over time and eventually things interacted to form more complex molecules and EVENTUALLY very very very simple organisms....which then took millions of years to give rise to multi-cellular organisms....when then took a VERY LONG TIME to give rise to relatively simple creatures such as ants. Everything took a long time to create, and it wasn't some "simultaneous" coincidence.

I'm too tried to explain full, so basically it started as simple molecules replicating themselves in some sort of primordial sludge and errors in replicating...few million years and a lot of other junk... the built up of errors lead 'life'.

I think your understanding of the process isn't all it should be. It wasn't quite as sudden as you seem to think it was. It is something that happened over hundreds of millions of years.

Not that I'm an anti-creationist, but I do know that your description of the process is flawed.

you throw words about as if your educated but really you answer you own question with your narrow minded bible bashing view...so why ask