So, let me get this straight. It's not valid to suggest that life might have formed from the most common chemical compounds in the universe, because right now, an insignificantly small percentage of the total amount of those compounds in the universe was produced by biological processes.

truelgbt wrote:If I say I can impress you by making sugar crystals and you ask with what?
My answer: with sugar water.

Are you going to be impressed?
Bottom line: Making something by using the product of that something may impress you but me....

Ok so as per Greyman:-

Methane is found on most planets of the solar system, several satelites including the Moon (as outgas from the surface), Halley's Comet and Comet Hyakutake , the exoplanet HD 189733 b, the atmospheres of M-type stars, and in interstellar clouds.

By your own arguments it would seem that either you have to

1) Disagree with this, or
2) Believe life existed in all these places.

If neither of these is the case, then how does the methane being there not destroy your argument?

If the USA can't make babies with industrial methane, then what chance does nature have? Checkmate, evilutionists.

USGS OF 96-272, Offshore Gas Hydrate Sample Database, Overview and Preliminary Analysis, 3. Origin: Biogenic vs. Thermogenic
ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Natural_Gas.html
Biogenic methane is mostly from methanogen energy metabolism:

CO2 + 4H2 -> CH4 + 2H2O

Most volatile organic compounds released by decomposition, however, are larger ones. Especially the bad-smelling ones.

I think that the OP reflects some very simplistic biochemistry, where DNA is the only significant biological molecule. That's what one might get from some headlines and popularizations, but when one looks more deeply, one finds that it is one of several. But putting that aside, I find that the OP seems to make a big leap, from

Ammonia and methane are decomposition products of organisms' substance

to

Ammonia and methane are only present as a result of decomposition of organisms' substance

This would not be a big leap for DNA itself, or for typical biological proteins, but it is for ammonia and methane, because some places elsewhere in the Universe have lots of ammonia and methane, like in the atmospheres of the outer planets, and in comets and the interstellar medium.

What a mystifyingly obtuse thread.

If I say I can impress you by making sugar crystals and you ask with what?
My answer: with sugar water.

Are you going to be impressed?
Bottom line: Making something by using the product of that something may impress you but me...

Well, if you can make 100 times more sugar crystals than you started with through that process, then yes of course it will be impressive.

It's not like anyone would have been expecting you to create them ex nihilo.... that may indeed have been more impressive, but that's because it would be magic.

I can make water out of wine.

THWOTH wrote:I can make water out of wine.

Not water I think you would want to drink of be baptized in!