No its fact you twat

The experiment he gave did not prove that life could come from non-life

Despite the fact that I have said that I didn't claim that the origin of life is 100% determined and that I referenced evidence for that?

He just proved that chemicals could change

Exactly

Into life

Life is chemicals

@Cobra Commander Yep. It's not even past the theory stage. It's just that, a theory. And a very unscientific one

Just think about that until tomorrow

gradual process: inorganic molecules > amino acids/organic molecules > RNA/Protenoids

A theory is a hypothesis with enough evidence to be considered fact by definition...

jesus christ *learn* about the things you try to argue against before you debate

Alright, well then both life coming from non-life and a God creating the universe could be considered theory

Equal theories

What evidence supports God creating the universe?

I'm glad you asked

Thats not the bible

oh lawd

You need *evidence*, not assertions.

Autism mode is about to be engaged

Geuss he gave up

יהרה not real lol

I like how he ignored that I had already said that it's not, and will probably never, be 100% understood how life originated on Earth.

smh

וםו

ךםך

@Cobra Commander First off, an assertion: The vast amount of intelligence around us points to a creator. I mean, do you really think all of this complexity was made by random chance?

Now, proof: The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ‘simple’ cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10e+57800. That's 10 with over 57,800 zeros behind it.

Yes i do believe things can happen on their

Own

https://creation.com/cheating-with-chance

So you don't have proof

Dude, did you see the next part?

And you probably don't understand how that's not proof.

Use a non Christian source

I linked you

I'll link you again: https://creation.com/cheating-with-chance

A source like that is biased

All sources are biased

Why on earth would you use creation.com to support your position about scientific matters?

Your sources are biased on evolution

No not proper scientific evidence and research