Have researchers been able to develop a plausible theory to explain how life could evolve from non-life?

Several months ago on the radio show, Coast to Coast with George Norrie, there was a scientist talking about this. Man has never created life from something where there was no life. Man can create life from seeds, eggs and sperm and so forth but not from dust, chemicals or anything else where there is no life whatsoever. This scientist said if it could be done he had his own ideas and gave the chemical reactions he thought would be necessary, etc. I have tried to find this online but no luck. Some people think man has created life from nothing but they are wrong, man has not and man probably will not figure it out in our lifetime.

"Cytologists now realize that a living cell contains hundreds of thousands of different complex parts such as various motor proteins that are assembled to produce the most complex “machine” in the Universe"

And all of them believe life evolved.

"Furthermore, molecular biology has demonstrated that the basic design of the cell is

essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals... In terms of their basic biochemical design... no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth."

Bacteria cells and animal cells are VERY different, bacteria don't even have a nucleus!

Please, TO DEBATE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO LEARN WHAT IT IS! Your arguments, as one person put it very boldly and well in a previous question of yours, are based on fear and desire of compliance to your deity.

No scientific theory anywhere says anything happened "by chance." Why does it surprise you that we exist on a planet that naturally allows for our existence? That's no "miracle," it couldn't be any other way. What would be a "miracle" would be if we existed on a planet that did NOT naturally allow for our existence...that would imply some "design" or intervention. Life arising all naturally on our planet is absolutely 100% plausible -- because it's a fact. It happened. No matter how improbable you might think it is, it happened and is therefore entirely plausible. Natural selection, by the way, is the opposite of "chance." Please go get some education, then maybe you'll stop putting up ridiculous straw-men, and not be convinced by fallacious arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Peace.

Well, Bilbo Baggins:

They have so much faith in their hypothesis that they think the universe was created from nothing, and now there is the "Big Bang of Evolutionl."

That is because there are no transitional species in the Cambrian Strata as indicated by complex and independent organisms, just what you'd expect to find in a water environment today.

The Bible code tells who our Creator is: http://abiblecode.com/

Ben Yeshua

No. The claim that the immensely complex information in DNA directing the composition of nanomachinery in the most primitive bacteria could have arisen from random chemical events is beyond preposterous. It is whistling in the wind.

The impossibility of getting complex information from chemical reactions is one of the several definitive proofs of intelligent design.

Cheers,

Bruce

They're starting to think men came from dirt after some magic being breathed on it. And later a woman sprouted from his ribs and had a conversation with a snake.

They even reproduced these in lab.

You ability to cut and paste isn't impressive. You probably haven't heard of the word abiogenesis because your education is a joke. But keep posting. We enjoy laughing at you.

It's recently been done in the lab. Don't you keep current of the stuff you are going to cut and paste about?

Copy and pasting creationist material and presenting it as your own is still lying for Jesus. Your entire premise fails.

peanut butter