Was at least the first life form created?

[theVOID]

First: Nice catch! Second, I agree that you have not claimed there is absolutely no god in this post and will take you at your word regarding all other places. I guess I was confused by the fact that you refer to yourself as an atheist as I thought an atheist was one who believes there is absolutely no god. If you would like to shed some light on this relative to what you do think in this regard I would be interested.

The word "atheism" stems from the greek 'a' (without) 'theos' (gods), literally meaning "without gods". Anyone without gods can be reasonably called an atheist. Today the general interpretation is one who does not believe (disbelieves) in the existence of gods.

Note that to disbelieve in something requires no positive belief or assertion, neither does it require knowledge or a lack of knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist, I do not claim to know whether gods exist or not absolutely, but I still don't believe in them.

This is very different from gnostic atheism (or "strong" atheism), which is where someone states that they actively believe there are no gods, and in some cases will say that the non-existence of gods is a known fact. I dispute this entirely.

I don't know about that last part, i consider myself a gnostic atheist in every practical sense but don't claim that the non-existence of God is a provable fact, i claim that God is no more believable than Unicorns, dragons and fairies and i am certainly not agnostic when it comes to the later (ok, except unicorns, i mean, horse with a horn... not really THAT surprising) so why should i change my position from one fictional being compared to another just because some people take the idea seriously?

---

Big deal? You clearly do not understand science. It shows abiogenesis is possibly, which clearly refutes your claim that by no means can life come from non-life.

All I can say here is that if you think that the Miller experiment is enough evidence to prove to you that abiogenesis is possible, your bar for evidence is really low. If I said that it is possible for me to produce designer pets, e.g., like Nickelodeon’s CatDog but real, would you believe me? If I said that I could prove to you that it is possible for me to do this and then offered evidence that I have isolated the DNA of cats and dogs, would I convince you that it was possible for me to do this? Would you now accept that this is possible? It seems like an analogous situation only I would have more evidence for my position than the Miller experiment provided for abiogenesis as the information to produce a cat and a dog is much more than just a few amino acids.

The Miller experiment proves that organic material (amino acids) can come from a chemical reaction of non-organic sources that are very likely to exist in a primitive earth environment, thus suggesting that life can come from non-life. The Miller experiments alone do not prove that abiogenesis happened, only that it is possible.... HOWEVER!:

The Miller experiment is historic, and since then there has been substantial development in developing solid base of evidence for Abiogenesis, including experiments that took place not too long ago (published in 'nature') that have shown that Ribonucleotides (the components of RNA) can also be created from the same type of simple precursors and conditions predicted to exist in a 1billion year old earth. Even better is the fact that Ribonucleotides are SELF-REPLICATING! http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/0...cleotides/

And that isn't all, there are now over 50 different series of circumstances that are believed to have the potential to create these simple building blocks for life on earth (terrestrial theories included) and despite the fact that far more study needs to be done to discern which of these potential scenarios is most likely, the fact that so many potential scenarios exist and the fact that there are more and more achievements in the field arising lately only lends credence to the idea of Abiogenesis.

Compare all of that with the complete lack of evidence for creation at any level (creationists & ID supporters have completely failed to demonstrate irreducible complexity, in fact their favorite example, the bacterial flagellum, has been proven conclusively NOT to be irreducibly complex) and the case for Abiogenesis is far more robustly supported than the argument for creation.