Disingenuous about Abiogenesis

The evidence is against abiogenesis, and many evolutionists are no longer attempting to defend it. They will make inane remarks like, "Evolution is not about the origin of life, but rather, the origin of species". Then they proceed to fail in their attempts to explain the origin of life and the origin of species through their "just so" stories, and the discredited Miller-Urey experiment.

I have encountered Darwin's Cheerleaders who insist that evolutionists do not discuss abiogenesis. That is simply untrue ^{[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]}. David Attenborough had a television show with fanciful tales on the origin of life. Worse, his stories about its origin and development were misleading, as they went against real science. Creationists do not have these logic and science problems.

In this BBC-Discovery TV program1 Sir David Attenborough tells us his purpose is to look at the origin of life and for the very first living creature that appeared on Earth. As he presents the evolutionist worldview, we shall examine what he says and compare it with the biblical worldview.

He begins by showing us a rock surface in Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire, England, and he says: “A discovery was made that transformed our understanding of that mystery of mysteries, the origin of life.” In 1957 a schoolboy named Roger Mason found a fossil in these rocks that evolutionists said were 600 million years old [i.e. Precambrian]. Viewers see a computer-reconstruction of this fossil as a leaf-like plant growing on the sea-floor in darkness. It has been given the genus name Charnia.

To see what develops, you can read the rest of "David Attenborough’s First Life: Arrival", here. (Part 2 of the series, "Conquest", is discussed here.)