[Condorman]

Answered already.

How? By sticking fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la?" You claim that intelligent intervention is the only thing that can create life. I'm trying to figure out how you arrived at that conclusion. You have nothing tangible to offer in the way of evidence, you have retreated from the position that your statement is supportable, and you have failed to produce any useful experiments on the subject. See this process through to completion, and withdraw the assertion that your claim is scientific. Then, finally, we will be in agreement.

[unlearner]

"You claim that intelligent intervention is the only thing that can create life. I'm trying to figure out how you arrived at that conclusion."

It is not a conclusion. A conclusion would be what we arrive at after testing. My assertion is an assumption. It is a testable assumption. It has yet to be tested. How can I be any clearer? Are you just pretending not to understand?

"You have nothing tangible to offer in the way of evidence"

Duh. I already said repeatedly that no support was yet available.

"you have retreated from the position that your statement is supportable"

I did not retreat. This was my original position. Supportability and falsifiability are what makes the assertion a valid hypothesis.

"you have failed to produce any useful experiments on the subject"

Experimentation is not yet possible, but will be soon. And I have proposed generally how it can be tested. As I have stated, nanotechnology should allow this in the foreseeable future. Nanotechnology seeks to make it possible to assemble structures atom by atom.

"withdraw the assertion that your claim is scientific"

Oh, but it is scientific. It fits within the accepted standards of demarcation.