It's the Abiogenesis, stupid.

AntiXtians (atheists, agnostics, and various others) love to go on about how they can prove that they're more likely to be right based on "science." Of course they point to "evolution" primarily, and you'll never see a greater usage of the bait-and-switch tactic than during a debate with an evolutionist, regardless of stripe (religious or not).

Never mind that the evidence for "evolution" being responsible for more than just dogs with different color coats, but rather for amoebas turning into people is ambiguous at best and relies as much on interpretation of evidence as on the evidence itself. It would be like finding a person holding a knife standing over a murder victim and proclaiming the person guilty on that basis alone, when if one looked harder they'd find another person's blood and fingerprints on the knife as well and it just turns out that the person they caught actually only discovered the body and had just pulled the knife out of dude's chest.

Whatever arguments and counterarguments are put up, they all essentially boil down to one basic argument: what is actually possible? Creationists and IDers (which aren't the same, incidentally, some IDers are actually panspermia-believers in the alien-seeding sense) believe that it's simply not possible for the kinds of required mutations to have arisen even in the time asked for by evolutionists in order to make a single-celled organism into a multicellular vertebrate.

But gone mostly ignored in the debate is the horse before this evolutionary cart: How did Life begin? Evolutionists who don't subscribe to any religion are adamant that it arose on its own ("abiogenesis"). Evolutionists who happen to be religious may also theorize this, but some don't. However, just how possible IS abiogenesis?

Well, if you've ever had any training in chemistry, you'll be aware of a phenomenon called "hydrolization" where water breaks down molecules into smaller components. Proteins are water-soluble and it is directly observable science that water + time = GG for many molecules, including chains of amino acids.

One of the main building blocks of life is the amino acid cytosine. (To those of you who took Biology and Genetics, you'll recognize it as one of the five main base pairs.) Without it, there can't be DNA. Cytosine has never been found in spark discharge experiments. They haven't even found it in meteorites. Biochemist (and evolutionist) Robert Shapiro comments that either Cytosine is very hard to manufacture, or it breaks down before detection. Attempts to manufacture cytosine have resulted in experiments that use different theorized atmospheric mixtures that not only go wildly contrary to what scientists think the early earth was like, but is a highly improbable scenario of what it was like back then. (I'm sorry but trying to pretend there was a Nitrogen-Methane-dominant atmosphere? NOBODY thinks that!) And even then the cyanoacetylene that is supposed to help make cytosine tended instead to hydrolize and thus destroy any chances of making cytosine.

And if that weren't enough, cytosine is highly unstable and breaks down very rapidly on its own. Forget all those "hot" scenarios you entertained, like by the hot deep sea thermal vents. Your precious cytosine--assuming it even formed, rather than its components breaking down even further due to HOT WATER--would get nuked into Uracil before you could blink. Even at cold temperatures, it breaks down too rapidly for it to be able to do anything in the vast periods of time that are indicated. If your theory has water in it, it's boned. But if it doesn't have water in it, it's boned too! Such a conundrum!

So while non-theistic Evolutionists wax nearly poetic (and satiric) about how Creationism or ID is a great big fairy tale, they're ignoring the enormous myth in their own ideological backyard. And the ironic part...is they're ignoring clear scientific evidence that they are wrong!

Nothing is more telling than Shapiro's own admission here:

‘Some future day may yet arrive when all reasonable chemical experiments run to discover a probable origin of life have failed unequivocally. Further, new geological evidence may yet indicate a sudden appearance of life on the earth. Finally, we may have explored the universe and found no trace of life, or processes leading to life, elsewhere. Some scientists might choose to turn to religion for an answer. Others, however, myself included, would attempt to sort out the surviving less probable scientific explanations in the hope of selecting one that was still more likely than the remainder.’

Yeah, some people will always believe in fairy tales...and moreso if they're under the blanket of "science"...now it just remains as to which "fairy tale" is right. And in my opinion, any "fairy tale" scenario of Life beginning has to have a being with MORE intelligence than the scientists running these experiments.

references here http://www.trueorigin.org/originoflife.asp