What is "primordial soup"? Well, ask 10 different physicists or cosmologists or astronomers and you will get (10 choose 2)*100 different answers. You might as well ask an astrologist or a card reader, or a good witch for that matter.
You see, as hard as they have tried, experiments to create spontaneous life have NEVER EVER NEVER created a single life form. Sure, they claim that the "life precursors" are created in the form of proteins and amino acids, but we have yet to see even the simplest single-celled life form spontaneous appear from these experiments, where presumably they have created plenty of "primordial soup".
Now, given their miserable failures to spontaneously generate life forms, even a single one, how on earth will they demonstrate the creation of an irreducibly complex organism? How will they demonstrate the "evolution" of abstract thinking in humans? How will they explain the coordinated, parallel bio-systems development in a human fetus, or any fetus of any species for that matter?
Well, they cannot.
One has to wonder: Why do atheists who are scientists cling so tightly to ideas that have no foundations in actual fact, no foundations in solid theorems backed up with data acquired through lab experiments? After all, aren't these same atheists scientists always challenging proponents of Intelligent Design to backup their assertions with actual data derived from lab work?
Let me put it this way: anyone of you atheists physicists out there who can present a case for evolution from the simplest of life forms to abstract thinking in humans will win an all expense paid trip to the Galapagos Islands. Better yet, I will not only pay for your trip to the island, I will also give you $1000 in spending money.
Remember to present your case using the scientific method: (1) Propose a theorem for evolution from the simplest life forms to a human being with the abstract thinking function (2) Design lab experiments to validate your theorem (3) Describe your test cases in detail (4) Record the results of each test case in detail (5) Map the data to the original thesis (6) demonstrate via data that you have proven the validity of your thesis.
In fact, you will fail. There is no way to evolve a simple life form to abstract thinking. You are doomed.
When you are done with this use case, then let's try this one: how did the first life form come to be?
GOOD LUCK but there is no hope to solve these problems!
One thing we do know is that each cell membrane contains epi-genetic encodings. This means that somehow, in some way, an "intelligence" was able to generate a "programming sequence", or set of parallel programmed sequences, which contained the instruction sets necessary to build a more complex life form. But the problem for the atheist physicist is that unless the "primordial soup" contained actual life forms, there would be no way for epi-genetic programming sequences to actually be executed. But we already have admissions from each and every atheist physicist that the primordial soup was full of "pre-life" conditions, not life itself.
So the impossibility of answering this challenge actually starts and ends at the primordial soup.
But I will give all of you a break. Let's assume that the primordial soup has already successfully done its job and created a single-celled life form. I will let you start from there to show the evolution to abstract thinking.
Read?.....Go!
But they do know the difference between a theory and a theorem, which apparently the author of this piece does not.
No primordial soup for you, physicist!
Very interesting.
Yet many scientists also believe in God and practice religion with sincere personal faith. In doing so, they recognize that science, even at its best and most powerful, offers only an incomplete understanding of life and of human existence and its ends and purposes. For faithful scientists, the discipline of science can be seen as a way to understand God's rule book for how the natural world was created and works.
We may expect that scientific understanding of the origins of life will continue to progress, perhaps one day even to meeting your demand for an explanation of the precise mechanisms involved. For ultimate meaning though, science is inadequate, leaving that to religion.
“One thing we do know is that each cell membrane contains epi-genetic encodings.”
No.
Cell membranes are not nor are where the genetic material resides. They are lipid bilayers and protein, mainly.
Epigenetic regulation takes place in the nucleus and is covalent modification of DNA and histone proteins.
There are no confirmed theories about the origins of life on Earth, only a growing number of unconfirmed hypotheses, including various forms of abiogenesis and panspermia.
All such hypotheses are based in fact, but none are themselves "fact", and are never presented in science as "fact", claims in this article notwithstanding.
All such hypotheses begin with the fact that under certain conditions, certain organic chemicals will naturally self-replicate, imperfectly.
Another name for imperfect replication is, yes, "evolution".
When, where and how such conditions might have existed on early Earth is a matter of great scientific curiosity, but the fact is the first evidence of pre-life is found in rocks only a few hundred million years younger than the Earth itself.
Further facts include evidence of pre-life becoming certain-life over the following billion years or so.
You could look at it this way: the period of time since the Cambrian Explosion of multi-celled organisms is roughly 500 million years, but before this "explosion" there were seven 500 million year periods during which no such "explosion" happened.
So life on Earth took a very long time indeed, getting its act together and its ducks in a row, before conditions made the Cambrian Explosion possible.
So here is the bottom line:
Therefore, differences between "fact", "theory" and "hypothesis" should be clear in everyone's mind, even in those who loathe science for its a priori assumption of methodological naturalism.