What Darwin discovered

The definition of supernatural is undefined, clearly if we take life to Mars, get it started, then have a catastrophe on the Earth, and never get back to Mars, you would not be defining us as supernatural would you. Because this is all within the realm of intelligent progress, that either exist now or will in the future. Now this life, that we put on Mars, could develop by evolution into an intelligent being, able to ask, from where did I come, and it all begins again.

This may be what DNA does, the junk (unknown what it does DNA) could well be the data for creating or recreating, anything..... and yes this includes us, that may be in his image...

You need to run the timeline forward, instead of 3.5 billion years backward like most people always do. If we (humanity) seed engineered life on another planet, then we are the Intelligent Designer of that life. The creator is then humanity. It's really quite simple, once you get your head out of the dead past, and envision the soon to be future.

I'm not talking about what humans might do someday. I'm talking about the origin of life on Earth.

Quote:

I'm not talking about what humans might do someday. I'm talking about the origin of life on Earth.

I know, but you are aware, that the past has a tendency to repeat itself, and when we as a race leave the Earth, as we are beginning to do, that a new era begins. Taking life to another World thus puts the human race in the position of creator of life on another world, these things are within our control. Speculating about 3.5 billion years ago, is not logical, and is a matter of faith, no matter what you believe. Unless you produce evidence that the hundreds of thousands of lines of genetic code needed for a simple one celled organism, could spontaneously generate. Since you can not do this, your belief of spontaneous generation in a pond, is a belief of faith, and not one of science.

I have never once referred to any genetic code whatsoever. You are utterly misrepresenting a position I have stated clearly. I am talking only about a molecule that copies itself and nothing more.

DNA is not a molecule

Molecular size

Most molecules are far too small to be seen with the naked eye, but there are exceptions. DNA, a macromolecule, can reach macroscopic sizes, as can molecules of many polymers. Molecules commonly used as building blocks for organic synthesis have a dimension of a few angstroms (Å) to several dozen Å. Single molecules cannot usually be observed by light (as noted above), but small molecules and even the outlines of individual atoms may be traced in some circumstances by use of an atomic force microscope. Some of the largest molecules are macromolecules or supermolecules.

Quote:

I have never once referred to any genetic code whatsoever. You are utterly misrepresenting a position I have stated clearly. I am talking only about a molecule that copies itself and nothing more.

DNA is not a molecule, it is, for a human genome (23 chromosomes) is estimated to be about 3.2 billion base pairs long and to contain 20,000–25,000 distinct protein-coding genes....