Please help this uneducated fool! I believe that the origin of human life is a product of intelligent design..?

Abiogenesis (or sometimes called chemical evolution) causes them all kinds of problems (life from non-life)—how is it that inorganic molecules just happened to arrange themselves into self-replicating molecules of tremendous information? They really don’t have a clue. Every year, new ways in which life could have originated pop into existence, get media coverage, and then fade away.

As Dr. Robert Hazen (a member of ISSOL, International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life, and very critical of Intelligent Design) admitted in a lecture in 2005: “The origin of life is a subject of immense complexity, and I have to tell you right up front, we don’t know how life began. It’s as if we are trying to assemble a huge jigsaw puzzle. We have a few pieces clumped together here and there, but most of the puzzle pieces are missing. How can I tell you about the origin of life when we are so woefully ignorant of that history” (The Origins of Life). And he admitted to that in his book as well (Genesis: The Scientific Quest For Life’s Origins).

Did you know, if you pick up a high-school textbook, there is no hint of woeful ignorance as to the origin of life. They sure didn’t tell us that in school. The truth is, the Miller-Urey experiment (they always put in the textbooks) is not even close.

In February of 2011, John Horgan (a science writer for Scientific American) had an article called: Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began. In it, he said, “Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life.” Why are they stumped? There’s the chicken-and-egg paradox of the DNA needing proteins and proteins needing DNA. There’s the instability of RNA. There’s the chirality problem. You have to deal with hydrolysis. You have to explain the origin of the genetic code. And so on and so forth.

You can find guys like Dr. George Whitesides, a prominent professor of Harvard University and an expert on chemical evolution, who will openly say that he has no idea how life could have gotten started knowing all the chemistry he knows (and you are going to be hard-pressed to find someone on the planet who knows more chemistry than he knows).

Evolution News and Views website was commenting on Harry Lonsdale’s “Origin of Life Challenge” that he gave in 2012 and said, “It’s so poorly understood that one of Lonsdale’s referees, astrobiologist Chris McKay from NASA’s Ames Research Center, commented, ‘The scientific study of the origin of life is still early enough that there's not even a consensus on how to approach the problem.’ What? Didn't Darwin propose a warm little pond? Didn’t Oparin propose coacervates? Didn’t Miller propose spark discharges? Didn’t Sidney Fox propose microspheres? Didn't Gilbert propose an RNA World? . . . 150 years of work has not produced a consensus on how even to approach the problem? Shocking” (Millions to Chase a Myth).

The fact is, we have never found anything that goes against the law of biogenesis, that life only comes from life. The evidence strongly points to an Author of Life. That is why Francis Crick (one of the co-discoverers of DNA) thought that life on earth might have been the result of “directed panspermia” (that life was “seeded” on earth by aliens). Of course, that just shifts the problem to another solar system or galaxy—how did life begin there?

Some people ask, “What about Dr. Craig Venter’s work—didn’t he create artificial life in 2010?” If you get beyond the popular media article titles, you will discover that he really didn’t do very much. First of all, keep in mind that it took about 15 years, around $40 million, and some very intelligent scientists. What they did was synthetically copy the DNA from one bacteria (adding a few watermarks), and then inserted it in another (already existing) bacteria and got that bacteria to read it. That’s pretty cool, but as it’s been said, this is simply intelligently designed plagiarism.

============

@William

What you did is called "elephant hurling." You need to look it up and quit doing it. It's not helpful.

Ummmm those things you're called, they are not inaccurate, and you act as if what they called you isn't true.

1. You believe in a fairy tale about an abusive magical man in the sky who sends you to burn for eternity unless you suck his d*ck for your mortal life

2. You ignore the irrefutable evidence for evolution and put it off as a theory, denying it is no different then denying gravity

3. Your book has 400-1000 contradictions total, if I made a book and they read that, it would nevreally be a thing

4. Something that someone wrote on a piece of paper is more convincing then evidence

I could ramble all day about how ridiculous your beliefs are

Oooookay. Let's clear out the nonsense claims here about what others believe, and get down to the basics.

What we know, scientifically (that is, by a careful process of systematic observation of the real world, equipped with rules that allow people to challenge conclusions as long as they can back up their challenges with equally systematic observations) is this: that all the forms of life we have observed share a common ancestry. Different species (as well as higher taxonomic groupings) differ because they have evolved and become genetically distinct. The evidence for this is overwhelming, especially since we discovered how to analyze genetic codes; if it were not true, there would not only necessarily be an intelligent designer, but also that designer would have to be working harder to fabricate evidence of common descent that merely to produce the different species.

What we do NOT know is how the first living ancestors, the ones from whom all life is descended, appeared. Several experiments with organic chemistry have produced evidence of intriguing possibilities, but none have yet produced life entirely from non-living materials. Nor, if they did so, would there be any proof that the same sequence of chemical events led to our ancestors.

We know roughly (with limited detail) from paleontological research many of the developments that led to the appearance of our species. We know that we can fully explain them by the processes which drive evolution, such as natural selection and genetic drift.

What we do NOT know is that there is not an intelligence somehow driving this process. You are free to believe in that, just as a gambler is free to believe that his success at a game is somehow divinely ordained, even though the casino can verify that it occurred in strict obedience to laws of chance. Events which occur according to statistical laws are entirely explainable without the notion of divine intervention, but they are with equal validity explainable with that notion; the only thing you can't claim is that you can prove they didn't obey statistical laws (and that therefore the divine intervention must have occurred).

So the notion of intelligent design is entirely valid--AS LONG as you don't claim it in any way refutes the scientific observation of the nature of the process. Make that claim, and you're adding a new claim about your intelligent designer, too: that he is the Father of Lies.

RNA is not DNA, so putting RNA together out of chemical components doesn't equal creating life.

A virus has RNA and yet is not considered by scientists to be alive. It needs to hijack a host cell to multiply.

Also, no scientist has yet been able to create a cell wall. Yes, they have thought of lipids, but they still haven't created a traditional cell wall. They can, of course, remove the contents of a cell and reuse the already-existing cell wall in a new experiment.

The Miller-Urey experiment fell short of creating life and that was a long time ago.

"Some have even claimed that scientist have created life from non-living matter in laboratories"

Until you provide a citation, cupcake, I'm going with the Occam's Razor explanation of this - that this is your misstatement of someone's reference to replication of RNA or the Miller-Urey experiment.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/10022...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_...

That scientists have not yet created amoebas in labs doesn't discredit all of the supporting research for abiogenesis and evolution, as you oh so disingenuously seem to claim, sugarpop.

Oh...and that RNA you dismiss? That's a precursor to living cells... which makes it a heck of a lot closer to the idea you deride than any of your guesswork gets you to some postulated "designer."

If humans were designed, the designer was anything but intelligent. For instance, the eye is put together backwards (as in all vertebrates). The mollusca have a logical eye. And why do we need our wisdom teeth? Or other structures that serve no purpose other than to become diseased? Or backs that are terribly "designed" for an upright posture?

The problem is human who accuse others of being stupid or whatever don't see themselves in the mirror i guess. Little do they realize that they are too small to even think for themselves like their ancestors who would rather let the intelligent one think for them, why because thinking is not for the weak and gullible, they would rather die than to think.

Think if the one who knows the way to the gold is going to show you the way, think again.

the same goes to asking you to believe in things and you devote your life to it. But they don't why ask yourself. In that believe you are willing to sacrifice your own life without getting a single cent, true.

We are built with a perfect design from head to toe, and we yave millions of cells and it's very complicated. Once you operate or open up a human body it is damaged for life and it will never be the same again.

Science has created RNA from non living building blocks.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucl...

Science has also created self replicating RNA in a lab.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/was-i...

Most biologists would agree that this is evidence of abiogenesis.

The definition of life , at a primitive level, is debated in scientific circles.

Is a virus alive? research that question

The only design behind it is Natural Selection that picks out favorable survival traits based on what survives.

Most of this is 4-6th grade science, and the information is readily available on the internet or in books by guys like Richard Dawkins. Yes, if you don't get it, you are uneducated. There is a cure for that, but you have to do it yourself.

Why does something beautiful have to be the creation of some being? Many people think that the Egyptians were helped by space aliens...they aren't willing to believe that people 5,000 years ago were really capable of building the pyramids--the truth is that these people figured out something