My scientific proof that RNA cannot spontaneously exist is: spontaneous existence of RNA has never been scientifically proven. What is supposed to make science so reliable and considered "fact" is that it is built upon the scientific method: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." What is concerning is that modern day science seems to be accepting things that aren't scientific rather than modifying it's hypotheses. As Ksa articulated, given enough time, probabilities lend themselves to the point that probabilities become a realistic likelihood. So given the raw materials and enough time even chance would produce RNA or whatever the raw materials could produce. This is a statement of intuition, deduction, logic, or whatever word you choose to use, but it is not a statement of science; and as Esquilax so articulated intuition is not the ultimate authority of truth. Because "millions" of years is not observable, measurable, nor testable it cannot be used as scientific explanation. Science demands it be rejected.
Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin. In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life. Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life. Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.
If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.
Getting back to life as a chemical equation. No doubt life can be observed as a series of chemical equations. This can be observed and tested. This does not mean however that life came into existence through a series of chemical equations and that is where we must begin. In order to test for how life began we must test how life begins. What we can observe now is the result of life continuing, not beginning. So while life continues as a chemical equation it cannot begin as a chemical equation. Evidence? Non-life has never been systematically observed (the scientific method) becoming life. Today I would imagine we can synthesize compounds from raw materials, even organic compounds and so it's conceivable things "happened" into existence because we ourselves can put them in the proper order. But we cannot observe them putting themselves into order. Nor can we bring it to life. We have to use life to create life. Our synthetic compounds need (through processes I don't fully understand) to be added to something that is already alive (a fertilized egg, or spliced into something living) Science seeks to observe but can't quite put it's finger on how to observe/measure/create life itself.
If we cannot test it, if we cannot observe it, if we cannot recreate it, it cannot be deemed scientific. Albert Einstein said this: "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." Sounds to me like science requires some faith.
