I just want to punch his face, especially when he does that little smile after dumping another finely polished intellectual turd out.

Deep down we're all a little quark.

Our atoms all split the same, end racial segregation!

Have you got some hydrogen in you?

Would you like some?

From watching so many creationist videos on YouTube, I sort of know the answer to this:

Since the Miller experiments (which pioneered abiogenesis) had a lot of flaws and were eventually disregarded, abiogenesis is therefore COMPLETELY DISCREDITED. Of course, creationists don't discuss the face that the reason the the Miller experiments are not valid science anymore is that they were REPLACED with better experiments that actually DID create life in lab conditions and did confirm all of the guesses about primordial atmosphere and chemicals. But yeah, they won't really get into that.

They also won't get into how, a few years ago, equipment used in the Miller experiments was re-examined with modern technology and it turns out, even with the flaws, the experiments actually produced more amino acids than Miller even mentioned, proving that while his guesses as to the composition of the proto-earth atmosphere was incorrect, he still proved you could create basic life in a lab.

Wasn't Adam made out of clay? Sounds like abiogenesis to me.

"better experiments that actually DID create life in lab conditions"

This never happened, what the hell are you talking about?

Lee Strobel is the champion of that bullshit. He talks about how scientists 'disproved' the Miller experiments... and leaves it at that. What Stanleypain is talking about is that the newer experiments which corrected for the Miller experiments' many faults actually produced more organic materials, making abiogenesis an even more likely prospect.

Here, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

You can see how this would confuse or convince the dull.

Actually, the REALLY cool thing is that the experiments have been conducted in a variety of ways, under a variety of conditions, and yet they still manage to produce copious amounts and varieties of complex organic molecules.

Creationists like to claim that abiogenesis was completely improbable, requiring JUST the right mix of conditions to happen. Not only does that fail a basic logic smell-test (it only needed to happen once, and you can rule out ANY past occurrence by arbitrarily assigning probability values to it -- what are the odds that you got that EXACT hand of cards dealt to you? it must be a miracle!!!), but the above findings vastly expand the possible range of conditions under which life could have arisen. Abiogenesis seems more probable, then -- almost inevitable.

His hand-picked YouTube comments discredit abiogenesis. I think that counts as peer review.

But I find the idea that it *couldn't* have happened absurd. Isn't an enzyme's shape to some extent determined by its peptide sequence? They're certainly not alive, but they aren't inert either.

I'll never understand what's so distasteful about a universe that works according to predictable, discoverable principles. A capricious creator made sense when you had to have 9 births if you wanted 3 kids, but this guy probably watched the moon landing.