One modern idea on the origin of life states that simple organic molecules such as water vapor carbon dioxide nitrogen methane and ammonia were mixed together to create life what was the mixture called

The only molecules that can be considered "organic" are methane and carbon dioxide, but these are abiotic and not considered fundamental in the biochemical molecular structure of the first organism.

The likely designation of the list of molecules is "primordial soup," but the proposition that these somehow collected, merged and formed anything associated with the first organism is naturalist mythology, as there are no naturalist processes capable of selectively formulating the required biochemical assemblies needed to construct a functioning organism.

Abiogenesis, the naturalist myth of origin of life is based on chemical evolution, as the Darwinian myth of "warm little ponds," Oparin-Haldane primordial soup, and Miller-Urey test tube goo. No naturalist processes can assemble all the required biochemically required compounds required for the the origin of life.

Primordial soup

Explanation:

The primordial soup is a theoretical mixture of organic compounds (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, methane and ammonia) that may have given rise to life on Earth. When one wants to explain how living organisms appeared on Earth, the theory of primordial soup is often used, which seems to be the most plausible scientific explanation.

Conditions on Earth in its early days were very different from current conditions. The atmosphere had no oxygen, being rich in hydrogen, ammonia, methane and water. According to the primordial soup theory, these substances were prepared to produce amino acids, which would have been able to combine to create organic material that, eventually, could have given rise to life. In order for this to happen, it was necessary to have a catalyst; the amino acids did not appear spontaneously.

h let me think

the old alchemists made significant contributions to science even though there starting premises were off a bit. their conclusions after failure would steer them into better directions for investigation. science is no more than close observation and the initial mistakes result in rethinking and retrying experiments.