The “origin of life” question is still going strong. Evolutionist Michael Ruse thinks life could have formed on the backs of crystals, and Francis Crick thinks earth was seeded by aliens. Some have proposed life emerging from hot vents on the ocean floor, ice, or on clay, and others think comets brought life to earth. Richard Dawkins, however, has asserted that nobody knows how life got started.

Evolutionists have long held that life (bacteria)- or the building blocks of life (such as amino acids)- could have originated on another planet, be ejected into outer space, travel through the galaxy, and eventually land on Earth where they would give rise to all life. It may sound far-fetched, but many scientists are willing to entertain and give credence to such ideas.

One of the problems with this is that research has shown that these “seeds of life” couldn’t survive the extreme heat as the comet enters the earth’s atmosphere.

An article in Live Science, however, proposes a new way that comets could have launched life on Earth. It suggests that the actual impact of a comet crashing into the earth may have provided enough energy to create simple molecules- the precursors to life. This was the conclusion based on a computer model in which a comet, consisting of water, carbon dioxide and other simple molecules, collided with the earth’s surface.

Nir Goldman, a study co-author and physical chemist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in California said, “When a comet hits a planetary surface, for example, that impact can drive the synthesis of more complicated things that are prebiotic — they’re life-building.”

The results of the computer model showed that the molecules formed aromatic rings, a type of circular, carbon-based molecule. “Every time there was an impact hard enough to get chemical reactivity, it produced interesting stuff,” Goldman said.

This is all well and good, however secular science is no closer to solving or understanding the origin of life. Computer models are useful, but there are so many unknown variables involved that it’s impossible to know what would happen in reality.

Even though the article states that the impact “may” have provided the energy necessary to create simple molecules, there remains the possibility that it may not have. The article is filled with caution and uncertainty, quietly admitting that these are just guesses as they theorize what the early universe and earth may have been like. Obviously no one was around to observe life form spontaneously, so these scientists need to find ways to piece together a complex puzzle which is missing most of the pieces while having no box to look at. And when this is done, no one has to be right because they can’t be proven wrong.

Further, claiming that the “building blocks” of life could have been formed this way is merely an attempt to simplify the complexity of life, as if adding the right ingredients is all that’s necessary. However, even if life’s building blocks and precursors could be formed when a comet collides with earth, life is still far from existing. DNA is a complex code of instructions found within every living cell. Those building blocks would need to randomly become arranged in such a way as to form a set of instructions within a protective cell and with the ability to replicate itself. This just doesn’t happen in nature, and in fact has never been observed- yet is believed by faith to have happened because it’s not considered scientific to believe God created life intentionally.

I think it’s also important to recognize that this study doesn’t even offer anything surprising. It’s basically a computer program suggesting that when comets containing simple molecules collide with earth they will form simple molecules- from simple molecules come simple molecules.

However I find it much more reasonable and scientific to believe that God created the heavens, earth, mankind, and all life just as it says in the Bible.