Replies

and most in the scientific community believe the creation of life will be a reality. .so given that at some point there will be created life

Most...in the scientific community believe....? Let's not go there. :o)

I get your point and have been loosely following the effort to move amino acids into TNA, RNA and finally DNA strands to prove that conditions and happenstance to naturally create life could have existed. But they have been stuck for a while now (time is relative, I know). The science does oddly follow the evolution science in that there are suspicious holes that provide falsifiable evidence in the study of fossils. Amino Acids do exist in nature (and space). But science is missing the link between the theoretical TNA (suspected precursor to RNA) and the amino acid. How did amino acids "evolve" into something that evolved into DNA that provided a replicatable cell structure?

Fair enough. .but my point is this..science has a paradox on creation vs evolution. .it can not test the mechanism to prove evolution. Because anything science does, any test they do and action they take is of course an intelligent act itself....so how can it recreate what they content evolution does with out intelligent intervention?...its a paradox ..any test of evolution vs creation can only prove creation can happen and can not prove evolution as an exclusively mechanism