Evolution without Creation

BUT life is not replicated by evolution, we dont even know what life is..Life can not be recreated so for me the juries still out..

Hence I said components. Self-replication underlies reproduction, growth and metabolism, i.e. life. Of course, many species do reproduce via self-replication.

Reproducing is not creating life.Life began in that primeval soup never to be reproduced and for all mans efforts never replicated.What is life? no definition is forthcoming.

I'm unclear as to what you're getting at. In your previous response you seemed to be talking about evolution. Now you appear to be talking about genesis. In my post that you originally responded to I spoke both of self-assembly and self-replication, both of which I'd say would be required for genesis and evolution. What precisely is your argument?

I am saying man can not create life, he does not even know what it is..

It's completely within the realm of possibility that one day we will be able to create a living thing from scratch.

As for what is life, just because we don't have a simple definition doesn't mean we don't know what it is. It's only the rare example where it's even a debate (like viruses, which can be considered alive by some criteria but not by others)

I am not brave enough to say science will never recreate life but up till now we have not even got close.We can see life, we try to describe it, we fail miserable.It appears to have been ,how do i describe the first event,created by we know not what and it has not happened since.This to me in its self damned hard to understand.

I am always confused how creationists could refuse to accept evolution. If there is a God then I don't see any divine plan in such bias as creationism. I mean, it just so happens that the female (Eve) took the first bite. How counter-intuitive does that seem?! But evolution, the bias is indifferent to human feelings. Seems to me a more reasonable method of creation for the sake of this 'equality' for all the life on Earth.

At what point does a complex system all of a sudden exhibit this pattern that we can perceive? If all is waves, then lets represent a system with er... waves (because all is waves) . Perhaps a container with strings inside. If you zap energy into this box (or shake it for a while I suppose) then the string would obviously form knots and weave in complex ways. And when a knot forms, does it break eventually? It can I suppose, but what are the odds? Are the odds just as good as they are in creating the knot in the first place? In the analogy, no, because there is friction. I dunno if you can represent matter in such a way, seems like establishing some sort of entropy which becomes more constrained as you go up to macro from micro.

So having a knot could represent a new condition or law that the string (object) exhibits... whatever you wanna call it. And the knot must now cause the probabilities of potential perceived motions (or change in conditions) to alter. Perhaps for the self-sustaining of the knot? The odds of the knot becoming even bigger increase.

Thanks btw for the clarification. Yes, man may well one day trigger a new biogenesis - it seems within the realm of possibility. As experiments go though, that's a long-term one. :whistling: Further, vis a vis your previous response to me, I wouldn't agree that biogenesis could not start accidentally twice or more in the history of one planet. Why do you think this?

The evidence i believe only shows one trail of life. There is no recorded evidence or even any trace of original life, we only presume.I believe biologists have admitted that the chances of reproducing reproductive life is at the moment completely impossible.I cant help repeating myself why is it we dont see life being created on other numerous occassions.

On the latter, I'd suggest timescales. As for the former, lack of proof of second biogenesis is not proof of only one biogenesis.